Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient reported functional outcomes following robotic-assisted (RARP), laparoscopic (LRP), and open radical prostatectomies (ORP)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer is associated with significant complications, such as urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Debate remains regarding the influence of surgical technique on these important functional outcomes.

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare the early functional outcomes following robotic-assisted (RARP), laparoscopic (LRP), and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in a rapid access cohort.

Methods

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed between 2011 and 2014. Functional status was objectively assessed using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), and a self-reported continence score.

Results

Two hundred and ninety-two patients underwent RP (85 RARP, 100 LRP, 107 ORP). The mean age was 61.3 years with a mean initial PSA was 6.2 ng/ml. There was no difference noted in urinary function between ORP, LRP, and RARP at 3 months (p = 0.894), 6 months (p = 0.244), 9 months (p = 0.068) or 12 months (p = 0.154). All men noted a deterioration in erectile function; however, there was no difference at 3 months (p = 0.922), 6 months (p = 0.723), 9 months (p = 0.101) or 12 months (p = 0.395),

Conclusion

Equivalent good early functional outcomes are being achieved in patients undergoing RP irrespective of surgical approach. Longer follow-up in a prospective randomized fashion is required to fully assess the most appropriate surgical technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2012) Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 62:10–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J et al (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 65(1):124–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Raina R, Pahlajani G, Agarwal A et al (2010) Long term potency after early use of a vacuum erection device following radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 106:1719–1722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Defade BP, Carson CC 3rd, Kennelly MJ (2011) Postprostatectomy erectile dysfunction: the role of penile rehabilitation. Rev Urol. 13(1):6–13

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim PH, Pinheiro LC, Atoria CL et al (2013) Trends in the use of incontinence procedures after radical prostatectomy: a population based analysis. J Urol 189(2):602–608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV et al (1997) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology. 50(6):854–857

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pasticier G, Rietbergen JB, Guillonneau B et al (2001) Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in men. Eur Urol 40(1):70–74

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Akand M, Celik O, Avci E et al (2015) Open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: comparative analysis of operative and pathologic outcomes for three techniques with a single surgeon’s experience. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 19(4):525–531

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hakimi AA, Feder M, Ghavamian R (2007) Minimally invasive approaches to prostate cancer: a review of the current literature. Urol J. 4(3):130–137

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK et al (2016) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 388(10049):1057–1066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G (2000) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. J Urol 163(2):418–422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ramirez D, Zargar H, Caputo P et al (2015) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: An update on functional and oncologic outcomes, techniques, and advancements in technology. J Surg Oncol 112(7):746–752

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L et al (2004) Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology. 63(5):819–822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Touijer K, Kuroiwa K, Eastham JA et al (2007) Risk-adjusted analysis of positive surgical margins following laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 52:1090

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Barocas DA, Salem S, Kordan Y et al (2010) Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival. J Urol 183:990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J et al (2015) Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur Urol. 68(2):216–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Barry MJ, Gallagher PM, Skinner JS et al (2012) Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of medicare-age men. J Clin Oncol 30(5):513–518

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S et al (2009) A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int 104(4):534–539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. O’Neil B, Koyama T, Alvarez J et al (2016) The comparative harms of open and robotic prostatectomy in population-based samples. J Urol 195(2):321–329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee JK, Assel M, Thong AE et al (2015) Unexpected long-term improvements in urinary and erectile function in a large cohort of men with self-reported outcomes following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 68(5):899–905

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Herrell SD, Smith JA (2005) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? J Urol 66:105–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Thompson JE, Egger S, Bohm M et al (2014) 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. Eur Urol 65:521–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Ireland

    G. J. Nason, F. O’Kelly, S. White, E. Dunne, G. P. Smyth & R. E. Power

  2. Department of Urology, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin 7, Ireland

    G. P. Smyth & R. E. Power

Authors
  1. G. J. Nason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. O’Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. Dunne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. P. Smyth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. E. Power
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. J. Nason.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Ethical approval

The proposed study received ethical approval from the departmental research meeting of the university teaching hospital. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nason, G.J., O’Kelly, F., White, S. et al. Patient reported functional outcomes following robotic-assisted (RARP), laparoscopic (LRP), and open radical prostatectomies (ORP). Ir J Med Sci 186, 835–840 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-016-1522-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-016-1522-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation