 |
|
Comparative Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Prostatectomy
Jim C. Hu, MD, MPH;
Xiangmei Gu, MS;
Stuart R. Lipsitz, ScD;
Michael J. Barry, MD;
Anthony V. D’Amico, MD, PhD;
Aaron C. Weinberg, MD;
Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH
JAMA. 2009;302(14):1557-1564.
Context Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) has diffused rapidly despite limited data on outcomes and greater costs compared with open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP).
Objective To determine the comparative effectiveness of MIRP vs RRP.
Design, Setting, and Patients Population-based observational cohort study using US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare linked data from 2003 through 2007. We identified men with prostate cancer who underwent MIRP (n = 1938) vs RRP (n = 6899).
Main Outcome Measures We compared postoperative 30-day complications, anastomotic stricture 31 to 365 days postoperatively, long-term incontinence and erectile dysfunction more than 18 months postoperatively, and postoperative use of additional cancer therapies, a surrogate for cancer control.
Results Among men undergoing prostatectomy, use of MIRP increased from 9.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1%-10.5%) in 2003 to 43.2% (95% CI, 39.6%-46.9%) in 2006-2007. Men undergoing MIRP vs RRP were more likely to be recorded as Asian (6.1% vs 3.2%), less likely to be recorded as black (6.2% vs 7.8%) or Hispanic (5.6% vs 7.9%), and more likely to live in areas with at least 90% high school graduation rates (50.2% vs 41.0%) and with median incomes of at least $60 000 (35.8% vs 21.5%) (all P < .001). In propensity score–adjusted analyses, MIRP vs RRP was associated with shorter length of stay (median, 2.0 vs 3.0 days; P<.001) and lower rates of blood transfusions (2.7% vs 20.8%; P < .001), postoperative respiratory complications (4.3% vs 6.6%; P = .004), miscellaneous surgical complications (4.3% vs 5.6%; P = .03), and anastomotic stricture (5.8% vs 14.0%; P < .001). However, MIRP vs RRP was associated with an increased risk of genitourinary complications (4.7% vs 2.1%; P = .001) and diagnoses of incontinence (15.9 vs 12.2 per 100 person-years; P = .02) and erectile dysfunction (26.8 vs 19.2 per 100 person-years; P = .009). Rates of use of additional cancer therapies did not differ by surgical procedure (8.2 vs 6.9 per 100 person-years; P = .35).
Conclusion Men undergoing MIRP vs RRP experienced shorter length of stay, fewer respiratory and miscellaneous surgical complications and strictures, and similar postoperative use of additional cancer therapies but experienced more genitourinary complications, incontinence, and erectile dysfunction.
Author Affiliations: Division of Urologic Surgery (Drs Hu and Weinberg), Center for Surgery and Public Health (Drs Hu, Lipsitz, and Weinberg and Ms Gu), Department of Radiation Oncology (Dr D’Amico), and Division of General Internal Medicine (Dr Keating), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute (Dr Hu), The Medical Practices Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital (Dr Barry), and Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School (Dr Keating), Boston.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED LETTERS
Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Prostatectomy
William T. Lowrance, Elena B. Elkin, and James A. Eastham
JAMA. 2010;303(7):619-620.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Prostatectomy—Reply
Jim C. Hu, Anthony V. D’Amico, and Nancy L. Keating
JAMA. 2010;303(7):620.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Influence of steep Trendelenburg position and CO2 pneumoperitoneum on cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and respiratory homeostasis during robotic prostatectomy
Kalmar et al.
Br J Anaesth 2010;104:433-439.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
American Cancer Society Guideline for the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Update 2010
Wolf et al.
CA Cancer J Clin 2010;0:caac.20066v1-NA.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Time to evaluate focal therapy
Cathcart et al.
BMJ 2010;340:c1057-c1057.
FULL TEXT
Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Prostatectomy
Lowrance et al.
JAMA 2010;303:619-620.
FULL TEXT
Prostate Cancer
Mohler et al.
J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010;8:162-200.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Open vs. Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy
JWatch Oncology and Hematology 2009;2009:1-1.
FULL TEXT
All you need to read in the other general journals
BMJ 2009;339:b4279-b4279.
FULL TEXT
Shared Accountability, Appropriateness, and Quality of Surgical Care
Zeller and Fontanarosa
JAMA 2009;302:1590-1591.
FULL TEXT
|
