Long-term adverse effects after retropubic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Nationwide, population-based study

Jón Örn Fridriksson, Yasin Folkvaljon, Karl-Johan Lundström, David Robinson, Stefan Carlsson, Pär Stattin, Jón Örn Fridriksson, Yasin Folkvaljon, Karl-Johan Lundström, David Robinson, Stefan Carlsson, Pär Stattin

Abstract

Background and objectives: Surgery for prostate cancer is associated with adverse effects. We studied long-term risk of adverse effects after retropubic (RRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

Methods: In the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden, men who had undergone radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2004 and 2014 were identified. Diagnoses and procedures indicating adverse postoperative effects were retrieved from the National Patient Register. Relative risk (RR) of adverse effects after RARP versus RRP was calculated in multivariable analyses adjusting for year of surgery, hospital surgical volume, T stage, Gleason grade, PSA level at diagnosis, patient age, comorbidity, and educational level.

Results: A total of 11 212 men underwent RRP and 8500 RARP. Risk of anastomotic stricture was lower after RARP than RRP, RR for diagnoses 0.51 (95%CI = 0.42-0.63) and RR for procedures 0.46 (95%CI = 0.38-0.55). Risk of inguinal hernia was similar after RARP and RRP but risk of incisional hernia was higher after RARP, RR for diagnoses 1.48 (95%CI = 1.01-2.16), and RR for procedures 1.52 (95%CI = 1.02-2.26).

Conclusions: The postoperative risk profile for RARP and RRP was quite similar. However, risk of anastomotic stricture was lower and risk of incisional hernia higher after RARP.

Keywords: adverse effects; cancer of prostate; long-term; prostatectomy.

© 2017 The Authors. Journal of Surgical Oncology Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

References

    1. Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, et al. Systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012; 62:382–404.
    1. Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, et al. Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012; 62:1–15.
    1. Bjorklund J, Folkvaljon Y, Cole A, et al. Postoperative mortality 90 days after robot‐assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and retropubic radical prostatectomy: a nationwide population‐based study. BJU Int. 2016; 118:302–306.
    1. Barry MJ, Gallagher PM, Skinner JS, Fowler FJ, Jr . Adverse effects of robotic‐assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of medicare‐age men. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30:513–518.
    1. Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, et al. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur Urol. 2015; 68:216–225.
    1. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, et al. Systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012; 62:418–430.
    1. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012; 62:405–417.
    1. Moran PS, O'Neill M, Teljeur C, et al. Robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Int J Urol. 2013; 20:312–321.
    1. Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2009; 302:1557–1564.
    1. Wallerstedt A, Tyritzis SI, Thorsteinsdottir T, et al. Short‐term results after robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2015; 67:660–670.
    1. Gandaglia G, Ghani KR, Sood A, et al. Effect of minimally invasive surgery on the risk for surgical site infections: results from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Database. JAMA Surg. 2014; 149:1039–1044.
    1. Shigemura K, Tanaka K, Yamamichi F, et al. Comparison of postoperative infection between robotic‐assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy. Urol Int. 2014; 92:15–19.
    1. Tollefson MK, Frank I, Gettman MT. Robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy decreases the incidence and morbidity of surgical site infections. Urology. 2011; 78:827–831.
    1. Tyritzis SI, Wallerstedt A, Steineck G, et al. Thromboembolic complications in 3,544 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with or without lymph node dissection. J Urol. 2015; 193:117–125.
    1. Leow JJ, Chang SL, Meyer CP, et al. Robot‐assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a contemporary analysis of an all‐payer discharge database. Eur Urol. 2016; 70:837–845.
    1. Wallerstedt A, Carlsson S, Steineck G, et al. Patient and tumour‐related factors for prediction of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. Scand J Urol. 2013; 47:272–281.
    1. Nilsson H, Stranne J, Stattin P, Nordin P. Incidence of groin hernia repair after radical prostatectomy: a population‐based nationwide study. Ann Surg. 2014; 259:1223–1227.
    1. Stranne J, Johansson E, Nilsson A, et al. Inguinal hernia after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: results from a randomized setting and a nonrandomized setting. Eur Urol. 2010; 58:719–726.
    1. Carlsson SV, Ehdaie B, Atoria CL, et al. Risk of incisional hernia after minimally invasive and open radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2013; 190:1757–1762.
    1. Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, et al. Robot‐assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016; 388:1057–1066.
    1. Barlow L, Westergren K, Holmberg L, Talback M. The completeness of the Swedish Cancer Register: a sample survey for year1998. Acta Oncol. 2009; 48:27–33.
    1. Tomic K, Berglund A, Robinson D, et al. Capture rate and representativity of The National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden. Acta Oncol. 2015; 54:158–163.
    1. Tomic K, Sandin F, Wigertz A, et al. Evaluation of data quality in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden. Eur J Cancer. 2015; 51:101–111.
    1. Van Hemelrijck M, Wigertz A, Sandin F, et al. Cohort profile: The National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden and Prostate Cancer data base Sweden 2.0. Int J Epidemiol. 2013; 42:956 –967.
    1. Berglund A, Garmo H, Tishelman C, et al. Comorbidity, treatment and mortality: a population based cohort study of prostate cancer in PCBaSe Sweden. J Urol. 2011; 185:833–839.
    1. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987; 40:373–383.
    1. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology, 3rd ed Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
    1. Ludvigsson JF, Andersson E, Ekbom A, et al. External review and validation of the Swedish national inpatient register. BMC Public Health. 2011; 11:450.
    1. Stattin P, Sandin F, Robinson D, et al. Report from the National Prostate Cancer Register 2015. 2016, available at
    1. Elliott SP, Meng MV, Elkin EP, et al. Incidence of urethral stricture after primary treatment for prostate cancer: data From CaPSURE. J Urol. 2007; 178:529–534; discussion 534.
    1. Wang R, Wood DP, Jr. , Hollenbeck BK, et al. Risk factors and quality of life for post‐prostatectomy vesicourethral anastomotic stenoses. Urology. 2012; 79:449–457.
    1. Carlsson S, Nilsson AE, Schumacher MC, et al. Surgery‐related complications in 1253 robot‐assisted and 485 open retropubic radical prostatectomies at the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. Urology. 2010; 75:1092–1097.
    1. Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S, et al. A prospective, non‐randomized trial comparing robot‐assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int. 2009; 104:534–539.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren