Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Clinical Research

The diffusion of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy in the United States: a case study of the introduction of new surgical devices

Abstract

Background:

The diffusion of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) in the United States may have led to adverse patient outcomes due to rapid surgeon adoption and collective inexperience. We hypothesized that throughout the early period of minimally invasive surgery, MIRP patients had inferior outcomes as compared with those who had open radical prostatectomy (ORP).

Methods:

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare dataset and identified men who had ORP and MIRP for prostate cancer from 2003–2009. Study endpoints were receipt of subsequent cancer treatment, and evidence of postoperative voiding dysfunction, erectile dysfunction (ED) and bladder outlet obstruction. We used proportional hazards regression to estimate the impact of surgical approach on each endpoint, and included an interaction term to test for modification of the effect of surgical approach by year of surgery.

Results:

ORP (n=5362) and MIRP (n=1852) patients differed in their clinical and demographic characteristics. Controlling for patient characteristics and surgeon volume, there was no difference in subsequent cancer treatments (hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76–1.05), although MIRP was associated with a higher risk of voiding dysfunction (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.20–1.43) and ED (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.31–1.56), but a lower risk of bladder outlet obstruction (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75–0.97). There was no interaction between approach and year for any outcome. When stratifying the analysis by year, MIRP consistently had higher rates of ED and voiding dysfunction with no substantial improvement over time.

Conclusions:

MIRP patients had adverse urinary and sexual outcomes throughout the diffusion of minimally invasive surgery. This may have been a result of the rapid adoption of robotic surgery with inadequate surgeon preparedness.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barbash GI, Glied SA . New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. New Engl J Med 2010; 363: 701–704.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 1037–1063.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Menon M, Bhandari M, Gupta N, Lane Z, Peabody JO, Rogers CG et al. Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 838–846.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Touijer K, Eastham JA, Secin FP, Romero Otero J, Serio A, Stasi J et al. Comprehensive prospective comparative analysis of outcomes between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy conducted in 2003 to 2005. J Urol 2008; 179: 1811–1817, discussion 1817.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Lowrance WT, Elkin EB, Jacks LM, Yee DS, Jang TL, Laudone VP et al. Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer surgical treatments: a population based analysis of postoperative outcomes. J Urol 2010; 183: 1366–1372.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Barry MJ, D'Amico AV, Weinberg AC et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2009; 302: 1557–1564.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hu JC, Wang Q, Pashos CL, Lipsitz SR, Keating NL . Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2278–2284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Williams SB, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Nguyen PL, Choueiri TK, Hu JC . Utilization and expense of adjuvant cancer therapies following radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2011; 117: 4846–4854.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vickers AJ, Savage CJ, Hruza M, Tuerk I, Koenig P, Martinez-Pineiro L et al. The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 475–480.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Schmitges J, Trinh QD, Abdollah F, Sun M, Bianchi M, Budaus L et al. A population-based analysis of temporal perioperative complication rates after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 564–571.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF . Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care 2002; 40: 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Klabunde CN, Warren JL, Legler JM . Assessing comorbidity using claims data: an overview. Med Care 2002; 40: 26–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hu JC, Gandaglia G, Karakiewicz PI, Nguyen PL, Trinh QD, Shih YC et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 666–672.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Tollefson MK, Gettman MT, Karnes RJ, Frank I . Administrative data sets are inaccurate for assessing functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011; 185: 1686–1690.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thompson JE, Egger S, Bohm M, Haynes AM, Matthews J, Rasiah K et al. Superior quality of life and improved surgical margins are achievable with robotic radical prostatectomy after a long learning curve: a prospective single-surgeon study of 1552 consecutive cases. European urology 2014; 65: 521–531.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Borin JF, Skarecky DW, Narula N, Ahlering TE . Impact of urethral stump length on continence and positive surgical margins in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology 2007; 70: 173–177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Saranchuk JW, Kattan MW, Elkin E, Touijer AK, Scardino PT, Eastham JA . Achieving optimal outcomes after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 4146–4151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shikanov S, Woo J, Al-Ahmadie H, Katz MH, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL et al. Extrafascial versus interfascial nerve-sparing technique for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: comparison of functional outcomes and positive surgical margins characteristics. Urology 2009; 74: 611–616.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dolan JP, Diggs BS, Sheppard BC, Hunter JG . Ten-year trend in the national volume of bile duct injuries requiring operative repair. Surg Endosc 2005; 19: 967–973.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brummer TH, Seppala TT, Harkki PS . National learning curve for laparoscopic hysterectomy and trends in hysterectomy in Finland 2000-2005. Human Reproduction 2008; 23: 840–845.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Palaniappa NC, Telem DA, Ranasinghe NE, Divino CM . Incidence of iatrogenic ureteral injury after laparoscopic colectomy. Arch Surgery 2012; 147: 267–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Romero V, Akpinar H, Smith JJ 3rd, Assimos DG . Changing patterns in iatrogenic ureteral injuries. Rev Urol 2011; 13: e179–e183.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G . Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology 2002; 60: 864–868.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mills JT, Burris MB, Warburton DJ, Conaway MR, Schenkman NS, Krupski TL . Positioning injuries associated with robotic assisted urological surgery. J Urol 2013; 190: 580–584.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cormier B, Nezhat F, Sternchos J, Sonoda Y, Leitao MM Jr . Electrocautery-associated vascular injury during robotic-assisted surgery. Obstetrics Gynecol 2012; 120: 491–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bianco FJ Jr ., Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Klein EA, Eastham JA, Pontes JE et al. Variations among experienced surgeons in cancer control after open radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2010; 183: 977–982.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Kwon EO, Bautista TC, Jung H, Goharderakhshan RZ, Williams SG, Chien GW . Impact of robotic training on surgical and pathologic outcomes during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2010; 76: 363–368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Sundaram CP, McDougall EM . Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol 2011; 185: 1191–1197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zorn KC, Gautam G, Shalhav AL, Clayman RV, Ahlering TE, Albala DM et al. Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol 2009; 182: 1126–1132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 2009; 374: 1105–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shuch B, Hanley J, Lai J, Vourganti S, Kim SP, Setodji CM et al. Overall survival advantage with partial nephrectomy: a bias of observational data? Cancer 2013; 119: 2981–2989.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Trinh QD, Schmitges J, Sun M, Sammon J, Shariat SF, Zorn K et al. Morbidity and mortality of radical prostatectomy differs by insurance status. Cancer 2012; 118: 1803–1810.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K Touijer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on the Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases website

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anderson, C., Elkin, E., Atoria, C. et al. The diffusion of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy in the United States: a case study of the introduction of new surgical devices. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 18, 75–80 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2014.49

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2014.49

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links