Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: An analysis using propensity score matching

BJU International

Volumn 107, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 1956-1962

  Magheli, Ahmed ^a,e   Gonzalgo, Mark L ^b   Su, Li Ming ^c   Guzzo, Thomas J ^d   Netto, George ^d   Humphreys, Elizabeth B ^d   Han, Misop ^d   Partin, Alan W ^d   Pavlovich, Christian P ^d  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^d DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

^e JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

biochemical recurrence; laparoscopic prostatectomy; prostate cancer; radical prostatectomy; robotic prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; ROBOTICS; SURGICAL APPROACH; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE;

ADULT; AGED; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; ROBOTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79955065734     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09795.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al,. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58: 71-96 (Pubitemid 351521864)
2. Han M, Partin AW, Chan DY, Walsh PC,. An evaluation of the decreasing incidence of positive surgical margins in a large retropubic prostatectomy series. J Urol 2004; 171: 23-6 (Pubitemid 37549081)
3. Walsh PC,. Nerve sparing radical prostatectomy for early stage prostate cancer. Semin Oncol 1988; 15: 351-8
4. Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA, et al,. Da Vinci robot error and failure rates: single institution experience on a single three-arm robot unit of more than 700 consecutive robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. J Endourol 2007; 21: 1341-4 (Pubitemid 350191375)
5. Berryhill R Jr, Jhaveri J, Yadav R, et al,. Robotic prostatectomy: a review of outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open approaches. Urology 2008; 72: 15-23
6. Binder J, Kramer W,. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2001; 87: 408-10 (Pubitemid 32240857)
7. Rubin DB,. On principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13: 855-7 (Pubitemid 40003820)
8. Rubin DB, Thomas N,. Matching using estimated propensity scores: relating theory to practice. Biometrics 1996; 52: 249-64 (Pubitemid 26125107)
9. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Baumert H, Vallancien G,. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 550 procedures. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2002; 43: 123-33
10. Descazeaud A, Peyromaure M, Zerbib M,. Will robotic surgery become the gold standard for radical prostatectomy? Eur Urol 2007; 51: 9-11 (Pubitemid 44821539)
11. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV,. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003; 170: 1738-41 (Pubitemid 37254918)
12. Rocco B, Djavan B,. Robotic prostatectomy: facts or fiction? Lancet 2007; 369: 723-4 (Pubitemid 46321629)
13. Gamboa AJ, Santos RT, Sargent ER, et al,. Long-term impact of a robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy mini fellowship training program on postgraduate urological practice patterns. J Urol 2009; 181: 778-82
14. Laurila TA, Huang W, Jarrad DF,. Robotic-assisted laparascopic and radical retropublic prostatectomy generate similar positive margin rates in low and intermediate risk patients. Urol Oncol 2008; 27: 529-33
15. Herrell SD, Smith JA Jr,. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? Urology 2005; 66 (5 Suppl.): 105-7 (Pubitemid 41356567)
16. Vickers AJ, Savage CJ, Hruza M, et al,. The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 475-80
17. Rozet F, Harmon J, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Vallancien G,. Robot-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2006; 24: 171-9 (Pubitemid 43842547)
18. Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, Lee DI, Edwards R, Skarecky DW,. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes. Urology 2004; 63: 819-22 (Pubitemid 38596655)
19. Smith JA Jr, Chan RC, Chang SS, et al,. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007; 178: 2385-9
20. Hernandez DJ, Epstein JI, Trock BJ, Tsuzuki T, Carter HB, Walsh PC,. Radical retropubic prostatectomy. How often do experienced surgeons have positive surgical margins when there is extraprostatic extension in the region of the neurovascular bundle? J Urol 2005; 173: 446-9
21. Menon M, Muhletaler F, Campos M, Peabody JO,. Assessment of early continence after reconstruction of the periprostatic tissues in patients undergoing computer assisted (robotic) prostatectomy: results of a 2 group parallel randomized controlled trial. J Urol 2008; 180: 1018-23
22. Wagner AA, Link RE, Trock BJ, Sullivan W, Pavlovich CP,. Comparison of open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy outcomes from a surgeon's early experience. Urology 2007; 70: 667-71 (Pubitemid 350030238)
23. Lein M, Stibane I, Mansour R, et al,. Complications, urinary continence, and oncologic outcome of 1000 laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomies-experience at the Charite Hospital Berlin, Campus Mitte. Eur Urol 2006; 50: 1278-82