Open vs laparoscopic vs robotic radical prostatectomy
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 39

Open vs laparoscopic vs robotic radical prostatectomy PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 177 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Open vs laparoscopic vs robotic radical prostatectomy. Oliver Hakenberg Department of Urology, Rostock University Rostock, Germany. NEWSWEEK, December 5, 2005. Alaska. 2001. 2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. daVinci systems in the USA 2005. Über 16000 Roboter-assistierte RPEs in den USA 2005.

Download Presentation

Open vs laparoscopic vs robotic radical prostatectomy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Open vs laparoscopic vs roboticradical prostatectomy

Oliver Hakenberg

Department of Urology, Rostock University

Rostock, Germany


NEWSWEEK, December 5, 2005


Alaska

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

daVinci systems in the USA 2005

Über 16000 Roboter-assistierte RPEs in den USA 2005


5 cm

1 cm


What are the criteria?

  • oncological outcome

  • functional results

  • complications

  • increasing case numbers

  • costs and revenues from surgery


Oncological results after RPEsurvivaln=787, 1954-1994, 25year survival data

Porter et al, Urology 2006


Positive margins

Offen (RRP),

laparoskopisch (LRP) und Roboter-assistierte (RAP) RPE


recurrence-free survival

RPE

LRPE

„…the available scientific evidence

has not been able to confirm any major advantage.“

Touijer & Guilloneau et al, Eur Urol 2009


Perioperative Faktoren

offene (RRP), laparoskopische (LRP) und Roboter-assistierte (RAP) RPE


functional results

  • continence

  • potency

  • cosmesis

  • duration of hospital stay

  • time out of work

  • complications


Continenceinfluence of nerve-sparingn=536 RRPs

94.2% fully continent, 27 (5%) grade I, 4 (0.8%) grade II stress incontinent

Burckhard et al, J Urol 2006


reported continence rates after RPE

open

LRP

robotic


continence after RPE

patient based results


Continence

laparoscopic vs open (n=1430)

Full recovery of continence [%]

p<0.001

100

80

open

27 %

60

laparoskopic

40

20

months

0

Touijer et al, J Urol 2008


recovery of potency after ns RPE

(n=70, 89% bilateral)

potency (%)

100

80

60

40

20

0

18

3

6

12

months after RPE

Walsh et al, Urology 2000


influence of age on potency recovery after RPE

(n=188)

Noh et al, AUA 2002


potency

open (RRP), laparoscopic (LRP) and robotic (RAP) RPE


Montorsi et al, Eur Urol 2008


5-year results for continence and potencyn=1288, population-based cohort

Penson et al, J Urol 2005


cosmesis

Open prostatectomy: mini laparotomy

8 cm

day 12

at 6 months


open vs laparoscopicin-hospital and recovery

Bhayani et al, Urology 2003


Prospective assessment of postoperative pain in open RRP (n=154) versus robotic RPE (n=159)all patients received i.v. ketorolac (clinical pathway)

Webster et al, J Urol 2005


return to workopen RRP, n=537

factors of significance were

age

hematocrit at discharge

catheter time

Sultan et al, J Urol 2006


complications

open (RRP), laparoscopic (LRP) and robotic RPE


Long term complicationsRPE in Austria: n=16.5241992-2003

Mohamad et al, Eur Urol 2007, 51, 684-689


increasing case numbers

  • OR time and capacity

  • surgical volume

  • complications

  • costs & revenues


Increase in RPE caseload

Dept. of Urology, Dresden University 2006


influence of hospital case load on oncological outcomeRRP, n=12,635, SEER data, cT1cadjusted for age, comorbidity, grade and stage

Ellison et al, J Urol 2005


Transperitoneal (TLRP) vs extraperitoneal (ELRP) laparoscopic RPE

Eden et al, J Urol 2004


costs depend on surgery time LRP vs RRP, cost analysis

  • LRP increases costs by 17.5%

  • factors for cost increase (in this order)

    • surgery time

    • in-hospital stay

    • use of disposables

  • cost equivalence

    • if surgery time for LRP < 160 minutes

    • or if LRP is outpatient surgery!!

Link et al, J Urol 2004


model calculation of relative costsof open, laparoscopic and robotic RPELiteraturrecherche

assumptionsrobotic investment 1.2 million US$

yearly maintenance costs 120.000 US$

robot use of 300 caeses / year (interdisciplinary)

surgery time RAP 140 min vs RRP 160 min

hospital stay RAP 1.2 days vs RRP 2.5 days

Lotan et al, J Urol 2004


costs depend on case numbers and local structuresmodel calculation

  • extra costs of RAP vs RRP of 783 $/case

  • cost effective with 10 cases/week

  • with 14 cases/week or more RAP becomes cheaper if in-patient stay is < 1.5 days

Scales et al, J Urol 2005


Ficarra et al, Eur Urol, 2009


continence rates after 12 months in prospective studieslaparoscopic vs open

Ficarra et al, Eur Urol, 2009


Ficarra et al, Eur Urol, 2009


Comparing robotic, laparoscopic and open retropubic

prostatectomy…

the available data were not sufficient to prove

the superiority of any surgical approach

in terms of functional and oncologic outcome.


Outcome of minimally invasive RPE vs open RPE 2003-2005n= 2702, 5% sample of MediCare patients

Hu et al, J Clin Oncol 2008


„Minimally invasive“

„modern“

„high tech“

„no blood loss“

„fully continent“

„fully potent“


„…wide acceptance of new techniques

based on hypothetical benefits or extrapolated

proven advantages from other surgical operations

such as cholecystectomy…“

„This study is more of a comparison of surgeons

and their techniques

than a pure comparison of surgical technique.“

Touijer et al, J Urol 2008


  • Login