Positive influence of robotically assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy on the collaborative-care pathway for open radical prostatectomy

A Multidimensional Analysis of Prostate Surgery Costs in the United States: Robotic-Assisted versus Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

The economic value of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in the United States is still not well understood because of limited view analyses.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to examine the costs and benefits of RALP versus retropubic radical prostatectomy from an expanded view, including hospital, payer, and societal perspectives.

METHODS

We performed a model-based cost comparison using clinical outcomes obtained from a systematic review of the published literature. Equipment costs were obtained from the manufacturer of the robotic system; other economic model parameters were obtained from government agencies, online resources, commercially available databases, an advisory expert panel, and the literature. Clinical point estimates and care pathways based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were used to model costs out to 3 years. Hospital costs and costs incurred for the patients' postdischarge complications, adjuvant and salvage radiation treatment, incontinence and potency treatment, and lost wages during recovery were considered. Robotic system costs were modeled in two ways: as hospital overhead (hospital overhead calculation: RALP-H) and as a function of robotic case volume (robotic amortization calculation: RALP-R). All costs were adjusted to year 2014 US dollars.

RESULTS

Because of more favorable clinical outcomes over 3 years, RALP provided hospital ($1094 savings with RALP-H, $341 deficit with RALP-R), payer ($1451), and societal ($1202) economic benefits relative to retropubic radical prostatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Monte-Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a 38% to 99% probability that RALP provides cost savings (depending on the perspective). Higher surgical consumable costs are offset by a decreased hospital stay, lower complication rate, and faster return to work.

Open radical retropubic prostatectomy 2007: the true minimally invasive surgery for localized prostate cancer?

The introduction of robotic laparoscopic assisted prostatectomy at our institution and nationwide has been a great advancement and has caused us to focus and fine-tune our goal for improvements in prostate cancer outcomes whether the patient elects for robotic laparoscopic assisted prostatectomy or open minimally invasive radical retropubic prostatectomy. While these authors favor the open technique performed by highly skilled urologic surgical oncologists, the lessons we have learned to date suggest that it is the skill of the surgeon that determines outcome, regardless of whether or not the operation is performed by an open or robotic laparoscopic technique. The concepts we have articulated here are related to resection and avoidance of positive margins, limited intraoperative blood loss and pain control, which allow equivalence in these outcome areas, regardless of technique.

Trends in immediate perioperative morbidity and delay in discharge after open and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (RP): a 20-year institutional experience

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Standard clinical care pathways to discharge have been established for a number of operations including radical prostatectomy (RP). The pathway after RP has changed dramatically over the past two decades due to improvements in surgical technique, anaesthesia and most recently, the introduction of minimally invasive RP (MIRP). This study adds evidence that the emergence of MIRP is associated with a decrease in LOS for all patients undergoing RP. In addition, it catalogues the development of the clinical care pathway over 20 years at a large, tertiary care hospital with extensive experience in RP. Finally, it defines the common reasons patients fall 'off-pathway' (ileus, urine leak, anaemia and re-exploration for bleeding) and defines the immediate perioperative morbidity profile of RP. Specifically, it addresses approach-specific morbidities and indicates that MIRP is associated with higher rates of 'off-pathway' discharge, most often due to ileus.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the development of the clinical care pathway to discharge after radical prostatectomy (RP) at a large, academic medical centre over the past 20 years, focusing on the rates and reasons for deviation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 18 049 men were identified from the Johns Hopkins RP database who had undergone surgery since 1991. Patients in whom the length of stay (LOS) was ≤95th percentile, defined the clinical care pathway to discharge and those in whom LOS was ≥98th percentile were termed 'off-pathway'.

RESULTS

The mean LOS decreased from 7.7 days in 1991 to 1.6 days in 2010. Of 7126 patients undergoing RP since 2005, 1803(25.3%), 4881(68.5%) and 312 (4.4%) were discharged on postoperative day (POD) 1, 2 and 3, respectively; 126 (1.8%) patients, discharged on POD4-21 were 'off-pathway'. The most common reasons for delay of discharge were ileus (44, 0.615%), urine leak (12, 0.17%), anaemia requiring blood transfusion (nine, 0.126%) and bleeding requiring re-exploration (six, 0.08%). The proportion of patients 'off-pathway' was 1.20%, 1.06% and 4.01% for retropubic RP (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic RP (RALRP), respectively (P < 0.001). Ileus delayed discharge in 0.28%, 0.37% and 1.9% of patients undergoing RRP, LRP and RALRP, respectively (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical care pathway to discharge after RP has changed dramatically at our institution over the past 20 years. RALRP appears to result in a higher proportion of 'off-pathway' patients, primarily due to ileus, compared with RRP and LRP. However, very few patients were discharged 'off-pathway'.

Clinical pathways: effects on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs

BACKGROUND

Clinical pathways are structured multidisciplinary care plans used by health services to detail essential steps in the care of patients with a specific clinical problem. They aim to link evidence to practice and optimise clinical outcomes whilst maximising clinical efficiency.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of clinical pathways on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, NHS EED and Global Health. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted relevant professional organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies comparing stand alone clinical pathways with usual care as well as clinical pathways as part of a multifaceted intervention with usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all titles to assess eligibility and methodological quality. Studies were grouped into those comparing clinical pathways with usual care and those comparing clinical pathways as part of a multifaceted intervention with usual care.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies involving 11,398 participants met the eligibility and study quality criteria for inclusion. Twenty studies compared stand alone clinical pathways with usual care. These studies indicated a reduction in in-hospital complications (odds ratio (OR) 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.94) and improved documentation (OR 13.65: 95%CI 5.38 to 34.64). There was no evidence of differences in readmission to hospital or in-hospital mortality. Length of stay was the most commonly employed outcome measure with most studies reporting significant reductions. A decrease in hospital costs/ charges was also observed, ranging from WMD +261 US$ favouring usual care to WMD -4919 US$ favouring clinical pathways (in US$ dollar standardized to the year 2000). Considerable heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis of length of stay and hospital cost results. An assessment of whether lower hospital costs contributed to cost shifting to another health sector was not undertaken.Seven studies compared clinical pathways as part of a multifaceted intervention with usual care. No evidence of differences were found between intervention and control groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clinical pathways are associated with reduced in-hospital complications and improved documentation without negatively impacting on length of stay and hospital costs.

Has the advent of minimally invasive surgery altered the risk profile of patients undergoing prostatectomy?

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the decreased short-term morbidity associated with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has resulted in an alteration in the disease-specific risk profile of prostatectomy patients. MIS in many fields has resulted in an expansion in the pool of patients willing to undergo surgery.

METHODS

The Columbia Urologic Oncology Database was queried, and 1751 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy between 2000 and 2007 were identified. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: patients who received surgery before or after the initiation of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) at our institution (from 2003 onward). Age at surgery, Kattan Nomogram (KN) score, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score sum, and tumor stage were compared using unpaired t tests with Welch correction and Mann-Whitney tests.

RESULTS

A total of 663 patients underwent prostatectomy from 2000 to 2002 ("pre-MIS era"), and 1088 patients had surgery in 2003 or later ("MIS era"), of which 519 and 569 underwent RALRP and open prostatectomy, respectively. There was no significant difference between the 2 eras regarding age, Kattan Nomogram score, or tumor stage. However, there was a significant difference in preoperative PSA (P = .01) and Gleason sum (P = .0002). In a comparison of the pre-MIS era with RALRP patients, only PSA differed significantly (P = .0002).

CONCLUSIONS

The advent of MIS for prostate cancer did not significantly alter the characteristics of patients undergoing prostatectomy at our institution. Although advancements in surgical techniques may improve clinical outcomes, this study does not suggest a consequential effect on the risk stratification of patients choosing surgery for prostate cancer.

The evidence-based pathway for peri-operative management of open and robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To assess reports supporting the novel and comprehensive evidence-based pathway for radical prostatectomy (RP), as collaborative-care pathways have helped to optimize management of patients treated with RP and such clinical pathways provide an ideal framework for constructing an original evidence-based pathway for the complete peri-operative care of these patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We searched for articles on Medline via PubMed to identify reports describing consensus opinions on appropriate aspects of the peri-operative management of patients treated with RP, specifically seeking to discern information on preoperative antibiotic regimen, peri-operative laboratory testing, use of beta-blockers for those at cardiac risk, pulmonary treatment, deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, diet advancement, pain management, anti-emetic use, bowel regimen, and catheter removal after RP.

RESULTS

Available reports were used to substantiate each variable of our collaborative-care pathway for RP. When available, meta-analyses were used to provide a broad review of the recognized clinical research. Otherwise, many controlled studies and retrospective reviews were relied upon to provide evidence to construct a framework for clinical decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first pathway for the peri-operative management of major urological procedure that is well integrated into current literature. The critical aspects of clinical decision-making in the patient treated with RP were validated by the available research.