Research ExplorerPublicationsComparison of Open Versus Robotically Assisted Cytoreductive...

Comparison of Open Versus Robotically Assisted Cytoreductive Radical Prostatectomy for Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Standard

Comparison of Open Versus Robotically Assisted Cytoreductive Radical Prostatectomy for Metastatic Prostate Cancer. / Preisser, Felix; Nazzani, Sebastiano; Mazzone, Elio; Marchioni, Michele; Bandini, Marco; Tian, Zhe; Haese, Alexander; Saad, Fred; Zorn, Kevin; Montorsi, Francesco; Shariat, Shahrokh F; Graefen, Markus; Tilki, Derya; Karakiewicz, Pierre I.

In: CLIN GENITOURIN CANC, Vol. 17, No. 5, 10.2019, p. e939-e945.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Preisser, F, Nazzani, S, Mazzone, E, Marchioni, M, Bandini, M, Tian, Z, Haese, A, Saad, F, Zorn, K, Montorsi, F, Shariat, SF, Graefen, M, Tilki, D & Karakiewicz, PI 2019, 'Comparison of Open Versus Robotically Assisted Cytoreductive Radical Prostatectomy for Metastatic Prostate Cancer', CLIN GENITOURIN CANC, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. e939-e945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2019.05.022

APA

Preisser, F., Nazzani, S., Mazzone, E., Marchioni, M., Bandini, M., Tian, Z., Haese, A., Saad, F., Zorn, K., Montorsi, F., Shariat, S. F., Graefen, M., Tilki, D., & Karakiewicz, P. I. (2019). Comparison of Open Versus Robotically Assisted Cytoreductive Radical Prostatectomy for Metastatic Prostate Cancer. CLIN GENITOURIN CANC, 17(5), e939-e945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2019.05.022

Vancouver

Preisser F, Nazzani S, Mazzone E, Marchioni M, Bandini M, Tian Z et al. Comparison of Open Versus Robotically Assisted Cytoreductive Radical Prostatectomy for Metastatic Prostate Cancer. CLIN GENITOURIN CANC. 2019 Oct;17(5):e939-e945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2019.05.022

Bibtex

@article{fae818c790a345289f28e202e627b664,
title = "Comparison of Open Versus Robotically Assisted Cytoreductive Radical Prostatectomy for Metastatic Prostate Cancer",
abstract = "INTRODUCTION: Cytoreductive radical prostatectomy (CRP) may offer a survival advantage, according to several retrospective analyses. However, no direct comparisons are available regarding the type of surgical approach (open vs. robotic) in the metastatic setting. To address intraoperative and postoperative complications of robotically assisted CRP relative to open CRP in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the National Inpatient Sample database (2008-2013), we identified patients with metastatic prostate cancer who underwent robotically assisted versus open CRP. Multivariable logistic regression, multivariable Poisson regression models, and linear regression models were used.RESULTS: Of 874 patients who underwent CRP, 412 (47.1%) versus 462 (52.9%) underwent open versus robotically assisted CRP, respectively. Between 2008 and 2013, robotically assisted CRP rates increased from 7.6% to 50.0% (P = .5). In multivariable logistic regression models, robotically assisted CRP resulted in lower rates of overall (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; P < .001), miscellaneous medical (OR, 0.47; P = .02), and miscellaneous surgical complications (OR, 0.40; P = .04), as well as in lower rates of blood transfusions (OR, 0.19; P < .001). In multivariable Poisson regression models, robotically assisted CRP was associated with shorter stay (OR, 0.72; P < .001) and higher total hospital charges ($2483 more for each robotic surgery; P < .001). Similar results were recorded after adjustment for clustering.CONCLUSION: The intraoperative and postoperative complications associated with robotically assisted CRP are lower than those of open CRP. Similarly, robotically assisted CRP is associated with shorter stay. Conversely, an increase in total hospital charges is associated with robotically assisted CRP. Nonetheless, the complication profile of robotically assisted CRP validates its safety and feasibility.",
keywords = "Aged, Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures/methods, Humans, Length of Stay, Logistic Models, Male, Middle Aged, Prostatectomy/methods, Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery, Retrospective Studies, Robotic Surgical Procedures/methods, Survival Analysis, Treatment Outcome",
author = "Felix Preisser and Sebastiano Nazzani and Elio Mazzone and Michele Marchioni and Marco Bandini and Zhe Tian and Alexander Haese and Fred Saad and Kevin Zorn and Francesco Montorsi and Shariat, {Shahrokh F} and Markus Graefen and Derya Tilki and Karakiewicz, {Pierre I}",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2019",
month = oct,
doi = "10.1016/j.clgc.2019.05.022",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "e939--e945",
journal = "CLIN GENITOURIN CANC",
issn = "1558-7673",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Open Versus Robotically Assisted Cytoreductive Radical Prostatectomy for Metastatic Prostate Cancer

AU - Preisser, Felix

AU - Nazzani, Sebastiano

AU - Mazzone, Elio

AU - Marchioni, Michele

AU - Bandini, Marco

AU - Tian, Zhe

AU - Haese, Alexander

AU - Saad, Fred

AU - Zorn, Kevin

AU - Montorsi, Francesco

AU - Shariat, Shahrokh F

AU - Graefen, Markus

AU - Tilki, Derya

AU - Karakiewicz, Pierre I

N1 - Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2019/10

Y1 - 2019/10

N2 - INTRODUCTION: Cytoreductive radical prostatectomy (CRP) may offer a survival advantage, according to several retrospective analyses. However, no direct comparisons are available regarding the type of surgical approach (open vs. robotic) in the metastatic setting. To address intraoperative and postoperative complications of robotically assisted CRP relative to open CRP in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the National Inpatient Sample database (2008-2013), we identified patients with metastatic prostate cancer who underwent robotically assisted versus open CRP. Multivariable logistic regression, multivariable Poisson regression models, and linear regression models were used.RESULTS: Of 874 patients who underwent CRP, 412 (47.1%) versus 462 (52.9%) underwent open versus robotically assisted CRP, respectively. Between 2008 and 2013, robotically assisted CRP rates increased from 7.6% to 50.0% (P = .5). In multivariable logistic regression models, robotically assisted CRP resulted in lower rates of overall (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; P < .001), miscellaneous medical (OR, 0.47; P = .02), and miscellaneous surgical complications (OR, 0.40; P = .04), as well as in lower rates of blood transfusions (OR, 0.19; P < .001). In multivariable Poisson regression models, robotically assisted CRP was associated with shorter stay (OR, 0.72; P < .001) and higher total hospital charges ($2483 more for each robotic surgery; P < .001). Similar results were recorded after adjustment for clustering.CONCLUSION: The intraoperative and postoperative complications associated with robotically assisted CRP are lower than those of open CRP. Similarly, robotically assisted CRP is associated with shorter stay. Conversely, an increase in total hospital charges is associated with robotically assisted CRP. Nonetheless, the complication profile of robotically assisted CRP validates its safety and feasibility.

AB - INTRODUCTION: Cytoreductive radical prostatectomy (CRP) may offer a survival advantage, according to several retrospective analyses. However, no direct comparisons are available regarding the type of surgical approach (open vs. robotic) in the metastatic setting. To address intraoperative and postoperative complications of robotically assisted CRP relative to open CRP in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the National Inpatient Sample database (2008-2013), we identified patients with metastatic prostate cancer who underwent robotically assisted versus open CRP. Multivariable logistic regression, multivariable Poisson regression models, and linear regression models were used.RESULTS: Of 874 patients who underwent CRP, 412 (47.1%) versus 462 (52.9%) underwent open versus robotically assisted CRP, respectively. Between 2008 and 2013, robotically assisted CRP rates increased from 7.6% to 50.0% (P = .5). In multivariable logistic regression models, robotically assisted CRP resulted in lower rates of overall (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; P < .001), miscellaneous medical (OR, 0.47; P = .02), and miscellaneous surgical complications (OR, 0.40; P = .04), as well as in lower rates of blood transfusions (OR, 0.19; P < .001). In multivariable Poisson regression models, robotically assisted CRP was associated with shorter stay (OR, 0.72; P < .001) and higher total hospital charges ($2483 more for each robotic surgery; P < .001). Similar results were recorded after adjustment for clustering.CONCLUSION: The intraoperative and postoperative complications associated with robotically assisted CRP are lower than those of open CRP. Similarly, robotically assisted CRP is associated with shorter stay. Conversely, an increase in total hospital charges is associated with robotically assisted CRP. Nonetheless, the complication profile of robotically assisted CRP validates its safety and feasibility.

KW - Aged

KW - Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures/methods

KW - Humans

KW - Length of Stay

KW - Logistic Models

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Prostatectomy/methods

KW - Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery

KW - Retrospective Studies

KW - Robotic Surgical Procedures/methods

KW - Survival Analysis

KW - Treatment Outcome

U2 - 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.05.022

DO - 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.05.022

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 31375352

VL - 17

SP - e939-e945

JO - CLIN GENITOURIN CANC

JF - CLIN GENITOURIN CANC

SN - 1558-7673

IS - 5

ER -