Open vs. robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

A single surgeon and pathologist comparison of pathologic and oncologic outcomes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the impact surgical technique has on clinicopathologic and oncologic outcomes among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Materials and methods: Utilizing the experience of a single surgeon and pathologist, a retrospective review of 1,041 patients undergoing open (RRP) and robotic-assisted (RALP) radical prostatectomy between 1999 and 2010 with pathologic evaluation using whole-mount sectioning techniques and tumor mapping was performed from our prospective database. Differences in the incidence, location, and linear length of positive surgical margins were compared. Additionally, rates of biochemical relapse-free survival according to technique were assessed. Results: A total of 357 RRP and 669 RALP patients were evaluated. The overall incidence of surgical margin positivity when stratified by stage of disease and location of positive margins was nearly identical between groups for organ confined disease. The apex and posterior surfaces represented the 2 most common locations for positive margins. RALP had notably fewer positive margins in pathologic T3 disease and a statistically shorter linear length of margin positivity among all patients. Short and intermediate-term biochemical-free survival rates were identical between groups. Conclusions: RALP is associated with operative oncologic control rates that compare very favorably to RRP. The data suggest that in the hands of an experienced surgeon, RALP has oncologic outcomes that are at least as good if not better than RRP.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1043-1048
Number of pages6
JournalUrologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
Volume31
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2013

Fingerprint

Robotics
Prostatectomy
Incidence
Prostatic Neoplasms
Survival Rate
Databases
Recurrence
Survival
Pathologists
Surgeons
Neoplasms
Margins of Excision

Keywords

  • Neoplasm
  • Open retropubic
  • Prostate
  • Prostatectomy
  • Robotic-assistance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Urology

Cite this

@article{eeb0420e672a4a71866f7adad915f9eb,
title = "Open vs. robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: A single surgeon and pathologist comparison of pathologic and oncologic outcomes",
abstract = "Objective: To compare the impact surgical technique has on clinicopathologic and oncologic outcomes among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Materials and methods: Utilizing the experience of a single surgeon and pathologist, a retrospective review of 1,041 patients undergoing open (RRP) and robotic-assisted (RALP) radical prostatectomy between 1999 and 2010 with pathologic evaluation using whole-mount sectioning techniques and tumor mapping was performed from our prospective database. Differences in the incidence, location, and linear length of positive surgical margins were compared. Additionally, rates of biochemical relapse-free survival according to technique were assessed. Results: A total of 357 RRP and 669 RALP patients were evaluated. The overall incidence of surgical margin positivity when stratified by stage of disease and location of positive margins was nearly identical between groups for organ confined disease. The apex and posterior surfaces represented the 2 most common locations for positive margins. RALP had notably fewer positive margins in pathologic T3 disease and a statistically shorter linear length of margin positivity among all patients. Short and intermediate-term biochemical-free survival rates were identical between groups. Conclusions: RALP is associated with operative oncologic control rates that compare very favorably to RRP. The data suggest that in the hands of an experienced surgeon, RALP has oncologic outcomes that are at least as good if not better than RRP.",
keywords = "Neoplasm, Open retropubic, Prostate, Prostatectomy, Robotic-assistance",
author = "Timothy Masterson and Liang Cheng and Boris, {Ronald S.} and Michael Koch",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.12.002",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "1043--1048",
journal = "Urologic Oncology",
issn = "1078-1439",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Open vs. robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

T2 - A single surgeon and pathologist comparison of pathologic and oncologic outcomes

AU - Masterson, Timothy

AU - Cheng, Liang

AU - Boris, Ronald S.

AU - Koch, Michael

PY - 2013/10

Y1 - 2013/10

N2 - Objective: To compare the impact surgical technique has on clinicopathologic and oncologic outcomes among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Materials and methods: Utilizing the experience of a single surgeon and pathologist, a retrospective review of 1,041 patients undergoing open (RRP) and robotic-assisted (RALP) radical prostatectomy between 1999 and 2010 with pathologic evaluation using whole-mount sectioning techniques and tumor mapping was performed from our prospective database. Differences in the incidence, location, and linear length of positive surgical margins were compared. Additionally, rates of biochemical relapse-free survival according to technique were assessed. Results: A total of 357 RRP and 669 RALP patients were evaluated. The overall incidence of surgical margin positivity when stratified by stage of disease and location of positive margins was nearly identical between groups for organ confined disease. The apex and posterior surfaces represented the 2 most common locations for positive margins. RALP had notably fewer positive margins in pathologic T3 disease and a statistically shorter linear length of margin positivity among all patients. Short and intermediate-term biochemical-free survival rates were identical between groups. Conclusions: RALP is associated with operative oncologic control rates that compare very favorably to RRP. The data suggest that in the hands of an experienced surgeon, RALP has oncologic outcomes that are at least as good if not better than RRP.

AB - Objective: To compare the impact surgical technique has on clinicopathologic and oncologic outcomes among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Materials and methods: Utilizing the experience of a single surgeon and pathologist, a retrospective review of 1,041 patients undergoing open (RRP) and robotic-assisted (RALP) radical prostatectomy between 1999 and 2010 with pathologic evaluation using whole-mount sectioning techniques and tumor mapping was performed from our prospective database. Differences in the incidence, location, and linear length of positive surgical margins were compared. Additionally, rates of biochemical relapse-free survival according to technique were assessed. Results: A total of 357 RRP and 669 RALP patients were evaluated. The overall incidence of surgical margin positivity when stratified by stage of disease and location of positive margins was nearly identical between groups for organ confined disease. The apex and posterior surfaces represented the 2 most common locations for positive margins. RALP had notably fewer positive margins in pathologic T3 disease and a statistically shorter linear length of margin positivity among all patients. Short and intermediate-term biochemical-free survival rates were identical between groups. Conclusions: RALP is associated with operative oncologic control rates that compare very favorably to RRP. The data suggest that in the hands of an experienced surgeon, RALP has oncologic outcomes that are at least as good if not better than RRP.

KW - Neoplasm

KW - Open retropubic

KW - Prostate

KW - Prostatectomy

KW - Robotic-assistance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84884725981&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84884725981&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.12.002

DO - 10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.12.002

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 1043

EP - 1048

JO - Urologic Oncology

JF - Urologic Oncology

SN - 1078-1439

IS - 7

ER -