Patient outcomes in the acute recovery phase following robotic-assisted prostate surgery: A prospective study
Section snippets
What is already known about the topic?
- •
There will be an increase in the surgical application of minimally invasive technologies.
- •
The reported patient benefits of robotic technology include reduced length of patient stay, reduced postoperative pain, reduced bladder catheterisation time and improved functional ability.
What this paper adds
- •
Reports on specific patient outcomes following robotic-assisted prostate surgery in the acute (in-hospital) recovery phase to:
- ∘
commence building a comprehensive picture of the trajectory of recovery, and
- ∘
allow hospitals to adapt their care and management protocols for this new patient group.
- ∘
Literature review
Prostate cancer, a disease that most often occurs in the older male (Crowe and Costello, 2003) is the second most common cause of cancer related deaths in men and is a major health concern worldwide (Humphreys et al., 2004). It is the most common form of cancer among men over 55 years of age (Jemal et al., 2002). In Australia, prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in males and is the leading site of new cancer in Victoria in 2003. In 2003, prostate cancer was diagnosed in 3441
Method
Prospective descriptive survey of the acute transition of recovery (in-hospital stay) of patients who have undergone RARP surgery for localised prostate cancer, admitted to a large metropolitan private hospital in Melbourne, Australia between December 2003 and June 2005. This 17-month timeframe reflects the introduction of robotic surgery for this patient group at this hospital. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the frequency and proportion of outcomes. Patient characteristics were
Demographic characteristics
The age range of patients admitted for RARP surgery was 46–73 years, mean age of 60.8 years . Table 1 provides a breakdown of the patients’ age groups showing that 46.7% were in the 51–60 year age group and 44.9% were in the 61–70 year age group. The mean body mass index (BMI) of patients was 27.03 .
A total of five surgeons conducted the surgery; however, two surgeons (surgeon A and surgeon B) conducted the majority (91%, ) of the procedures. Just over half
Discussion
The findings reported in this study related to this Australian cohort make an important contribution to our growing understanding of the recovery of patients following robotic-assisted MIV surgery.
Apart from referral to particular surgeons by the patients’ general practitioners it appears that some patients actively seek to have robotic-assisted surgery. This assertion is based on first, the number of men who did not live in the State of Victoria meaning that they travelled some distance and
Conclusion
The findings from this study report the patient outcomes in the acute recovery phase of an Australian cohort of patients who underwent RARP surgery for localised cancer. We have been able to commence building a comprehensive picture of the trajectory of recovery in acute care to inform practice.
As more patients undergo robotic-assisted surgery worldwide these findings will provide nurses, who are not experienced in caring for this patient group, with valuable information to plan in-hospital
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank Mr Justin Peters, MBBS, FRACS for his assistance with patient recruitment.
References (36)
- et al.
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot
The Journal of Urology
(2001) - et al.
Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
The Journal of Urology
(2003) - et al.
In situ anatomical study of the male urethral sphincter complex: relevance to continence preservation following major pelvic surgery
Journal of Urology
(1998) - et al.
Prospective assessment of incontinence after radical retropubic prostatectomy: objective and subjective analysis
Urology
(1997) - et al.
Body mass index as a predictor of prostate cancer: development versus detection on biopsy
Urology
(2005) - et al.
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique
The Journal of Urology
(2000) - et al.
Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
(2004) - et al.
Robotic radical prostatectomy and the Vattikuti urology institute techniques: an interim analysis of results and technical points
Urology
(2003) - et al.
Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes
The Journal of Urology
(2002) - et al.
Computer-enhanced ‘robotic’ cardiac surgery: experience in 148 patients
Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
(2001)
Early experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
Asian Journal of Surgery
Remote-controlled laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using the da Vinci surgical system
Ospedali d’Italia Chirurgia
Robotic surgery in urology: fact or fantasy?
BJU International
Robotic surgery in surgery: past, present, and future
The American Journal of Surgery
Prostate cancer: perspectives on quality of life and impact of treatment on patients and their partners
Urologic Nursing
Patient evaluation of a discharge program following a radical prostatectomy
Urologic Nursing
Cited by (3)
Perioperative nurses' work experience with robotic surgery: A focus group study
2016, CIN - Computers Informatics NursingContinuing education for urology nurses: Harnessing the potential of e-learning
2012, International Journal of Urological Nursing