Prospective comparison of the impact of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy on health-related quality of life and decision regret

Influential Factors Impacting Treatment Decision-making and Decision Regret in Patients with Localized or Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review

CONTEXT

Treatment decision-making (TDM) for patients with localized (LPC) or locally advanced (LAPC) prostate cancer is complex, and post-treatment decision regret (DR) is common. The factors driving TDM or predicting DR remain understudied.

OBJECTIVE

Two systematic literature reviews were conducted to explore the factors associated with TDM and DR.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Three online databases, select congress proceedings, and gray literature were searched (September 2022). Publications on TDM and DR in LPC/LAPC were prioritized based on the following: 2012 onward, ≥100 patients, journal article, and quantitative data. The Preferred Reporting Items Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed. Influential factors were those with p < 0.05; for TDM, factors described as "a decision driver", "associated", "influential", or "significant" were also included. The key factors were determined by number of studies, consistency of evidence, and study quality.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventy-five publications (68 studies) reported TDM. Patient participation in TDM was reported in 34 publications; overall, patients preferred an active/shared role. Of 39 influential TDM factors, age, ethnicity, external factors (physician recommendation most common), and treatment characteristics/toxicity were key. Forty-nine publications reported DR. The proportion of patients experiencing DR varied by treatment type: 7-43% (active surveillance), 12-57% (radical prostatectomy), 1-49% (radiotherapy), 28-49% (androgen-deprivation therapy), and 21-47% (combination therapy). Of 42 significant DR factors, treatment toxicity (sexual/urinary/bowel dysfunction), patient role in TDM, and treatment type were key.

CONCLUSIONS

The key factors impacting TDM were physician recommendation, age, ethnicity, and treatment characteristics. Treatment toxicity and TDM approach were the key factors influencing DR. To help patients navigate factors influencing TDM and to limit DR, a shared, consensual TDM approach between patients, caregivers, and physicians is needed.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at factors influencing treatment decision-making (TDM) and decision regret (DR) in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. The key factors influencing TDM were doctor's recommendation, patient age/ethnicity, and treatment side effects. A shared, consensual TDM approach between patients and doctors was found to limit DR.

Usability of an Automated System for Real-Time Monitoring of Shared Decision-Making for Surgery: Mixed Methods Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Improving shared decision-making (SDM) for patients has become a health policy priority in many countries. Achieving high-quality SDM is particularly important for approximately 313 million surgical treatment decisions patients make globally every year. Large-scale monitoring of surgical patients' experience of SDM in real time is needed to identify the failings of SDM before surgery is performed. We developed a novel approach to automating real-time data collection using an electronic measurement system to address this. Examining usability will facilitate its optimization and wider implementation to inform interventions aimed at improving SDM.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the usability of an electronic real-time measurement system to monitor surgical patients' experience of SDM. We aimed to evaluate the metrics and indicators relevant to system effectiveness, system efficiency, and user satisfaction.

METHODS

We performed a mixed methods usability evaluation using multiple participant cohorts. The measurement system was implemented in a large UK hospital to measure patients' experience of SDM electronically before surgery using 2 validated measures (CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9). Quantitative data (collected between April 1 and December 31, 2021) provided measurement system metrics to assess system effectiveness and efficiency. We included adult patients booked for urgent and elective surgery across 7 specialties and excluded patients without the capacity to consent for medical procedures, those without access to an internet-enabled device, and those undergoing emergency or endoscopic procedures. Additional groups of service users (group 1: public members who had not engaged with the system; group 2: a subset of patients who completed the measurement system) completed user-testing sessions and semistructured interviews to assess system effectiveness and user satisfaction. We conducted quantitative data analysis using descriptive statistics and calculated the task completion rate and survey response rate (system effectiveness) as well as the task completion time, task efficiency, and relative efficiency (system efficiency). Qualitative thematic analysis identified indicators of and barriers to good usability (user satisfaction).

RESULTS

A total of 2254 completed surveys were returned to the measurement system. A total of 25 service users (group 1: n=9; group 2: n=16) participated in user-testing sessions and interviews. The task completion rate was high (169/171, 98.8%) and the survey response rate was good (2254/5794, 38.9%). The median task completion time was 3 (IQR 2-13) minutes, suggesting good system efficiency and effectiveness. The qualitative findings emphasized good user satisfaction. The identified themes suggested that the measurement system is acceptable, easy to use, and easy to access. Service users identified potential barriers and solutions to acceptability and ease of access.

CONCLUSIONS

A mixed methods evaluation of an electronic measurement system for automated, real-time monitoring of patients' experience of SDM showed that usability among patients was high. Future pilot work will optimize the system for wider implementation to ultimately inform intervention development to improve SDM.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079155.

Prospective cohort study investigating quality of life outcomes following multi-speciality robotic-assisted surgery

INTRODUCTION

Despite recent evidence on the surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), other patient centre outcomes, including quality of life (QOL), are lacking. This study aims to examine changes in QoL trajectories following RAS across different surgical specialities.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted for patients undergoing urologic, cardiothoracic, colorectal or benign gynaecological RAS, between June 2016 and January 2020 at a tertiary referral hospital in Australia. QoL was measured using the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey at pre-operative, 6 weeks and 6 months postoperatively. Physical and mental summary scores and utility index were primary outcomes, and sub-domains were secondary outcomes.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Mixed-effects linear regressions were used to determine changes in QoL trajectories.

RESULTS

Of the 254 patients undergoing RAS, 154 underwent urologic, 36 cardiothoracic, 24 colorectal and 40 benign gynaecological surgery. Overall, the average age was 58.8 years and most patients were male (75.1%). Physical summary scores significantly decreased from pre-operative to 6 weeks' post-operative in urologic and colorectal RAS; with all surgical specialities at least returning to pre-operative levels within 6 months postoperatively. Mental summary scores consistently increased from pre-operative to 6 months postoperatively for colorectal and gynaecological RAS.

CONCLUSIONS

RAS contributed to positive changes in QoL, with physical health returning to the pre-operative level and mental health improvements across specialities, in the short term. While degrees of post-operative changes varied amongst specialities, significant improvements demonstrate benefits in RAS.

Patient Satisfaction and Regret After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Decision Regret Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess treatment satisfaction and decision regret post robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and correlate these with clinical, demographic and quality of life indicators. Our study took place at a high-volume United Kingdom center and patients were assessed at a minimum of 18 months postsurgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RARP between June 2011 and May 2016 were invited to participate through mailed questionnaires. A total of 207 patients formed our cohort. The questionnaires included European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life of Cancer patients 30 and PR25 modules, sexual health inventory in men and Likert decisional regret scale. A Decisional Regret Scale score of >15 was used to define an outcome of high decision regret.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 63 years and the mean duration of follow up was 36 months. Of the 106 responders, 51 (48%) were fully satisfied with the decision to undergo RARP and 32 (30%) recorded high regret. The mean Decisional Regret Scale score was 11.3. High decision regret associated with the length of time from RARP to questionnaire administration, higher prostate specific quality of life symptom scores and lower sexual and erectile function scores.

CONCLUSION

Our study represents the first contemporary United Kingdom series assessing decision regret following the management of localised prostate cancer with RARP. Higher regret was seen in one third of patients and was associated with worse disease-specific quality of life, sexual and erectile function measures. To minimize regret, collaborative and detailed discussion should take place pre-operatively when counselling patients about RARP. The potential longevity and impact on quality of life of these side effects should be made clear.

A Safe teaching protocol of LRP (laparoscopic radical prostatectomy)

PURPOSE

The LRP has a steep learning curve to obtain proficiency during which patient safety may be compromised. We present an adapted modular training system which purpose to optimize the learning curve and perform a safe surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the LRP safe learning protocol applied during a fellowship program over eight years (2008-2015). The surgery was divided in 12 steps and 5 levels of difficulty. A maximum time interval was stipulated in 240 minutes. After an adaptation, the fellows had 120 minutes to perform all the corresponding modules to its accumulated skill. The participants gradually and safely pass through the steps and difficulty levels. Surgeries performed by fellows were analyzed as a single group and compared to a prior series performed by tutor.

RESULTS

In eight years, 250 LRP were performed (25 per apprentice) during fellowship program and 150 procedures after completion. The baseline characteristics were comparable. Most cases operated were of intermediate risk. Mean operative time was longer in the fellow group when compared to the tutor (150 min). Mean estimated blood loss were similar among the groups. Functional and oncological outcomes were better in the Tutor´s group. No conversion to open surgery was performed.

CONCLUSIONS

The LRP safe learning protocol proved to be an effective method to optimize the learning curve and perform safe surgery. However, the tutor's functional and oncological results were better, showing that this is a procedure with a steep learning curve and proficiency demands more than 25 cases.

Patient-reported outcomes after treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review is to assess the impact of primary treatments with curative intention in patients with localized prostate cancer, measured with Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs), and to examine differences among modalities within treatments.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search for January 2005-March 2017 following PRISMA guidelines, including longitudinal studies measuring disease-specific PROs in localized prostate cancer patients with a follow-up from pre- to post-treatment (≥1 year). Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The study is registered in PROSPERO: CRD42015019747.

RESULTS

Of 148 identified studies, 60 were included in the meta-analyses. At the 1st year, radical prostatectomy patients showed small urinary irritative-obstructive improvement (0.37SD 95%CI 0.30, 0.45), but large deterioration for sexual function and incontinence with high heterogeneity (I² = 77% and 93%). Moderate worsening in external radiotherapy patients for sexual function (-0.46SD 95%CI -0.55, -0.36), small urinary incontinence (-0.16SD 95%CI -0.23, -0.09) and bowel impairment (-0.31SD 95%CI -0.39, -0.23). Brachytherapy patients presented small deterioration in urinary incontinence (-0.29SD 95%CI -0.39, -0.19), irritative obstructive symptoms (-0.35SD 95%CI -0.47, -0.23), sexual function (-0.12SD 95%CI -0.24, -0.002), and bowel bother (-0.27SD 95%CI -0.42, -0.11). These patterns persisted up to the 5th year. High-intensity focused ultrasound and active surveillance only have results at 1st year, showing no statistically significant worsening.

CONCLUSIONS

No remarkable differences in PRO appeared between modalities within each treatment. Nowadays, available evidence supports brachytherapy as possible alternative to radical prostatectomy for patients seeking an attempted curative treatment limiting the risk for urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction.

Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and an meta-analysis update

CONTEXT

The safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy(RRP) is debated. Recently, a number of large-scale and high-quality studies have been conducted.

OBJECTIVE

To obtain a more valid assessment, we update the meta-analysis of RARP compared with RRP to assessed its safety and feasibility in treatment of prostate cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify studies that compared RARP with RRP. Outcomes of interest included perioperative, pathologic variables and complications.

RESULTS

78 studies assessing RARP vs. RRP were included for meta-analysis. Although patients underwent RRP have shorter operative time than RARP (WMD: 39.85 minutes; P < 0.001), patients underwent RARP have less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -507.67ml; P < 0.001), lower blood transfusion rates (OR = 0.13; P < 0.001), shorter time to remove catheter (WMD = -3.04day; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -1.62day; P < 0.001), lower PSM rates (OR:0.88; P = 0.04), fewer positive lymph nodes (OR:0.45;P < 0.001), fewer overall complications (OR:0.43; P < 0.001), higher 3- and 12-mo potent recovery rate (OR:3.19;P = 0.02; OR:2.37; P = 0.005, respectively), and lower readmission rate (OR:0.70, P = 0.03). The biochemical recurrence free survival of RARP is better than RRP (OR:1.33, P = 0.04). All the other calculated results are similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that RARP appears to be safe and effective to its counterpart RRP in selected patients.

Regret in Surgical Decision Making: A Systematic Review of Patient and Physician Perspectives

OBJECTIVE

Regret is a powerful motivating factor in medical decision making among patients and surgeons. Regret can be particularly important for surgical decisions, which often carry significant risk and may have uncertain outcomes. We performed a systematic review of the literature focused on patient and physician regret in the surgical setting.

METHODS

A search of the English literature between 1986 and 2016 that examined patient and physician self-reported decisional regret was carried out using the MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science databases. Clinical studies performed in patients and physicians participating in elective surgical treatment were included.

RESULTS

Of 889 studies identified, 73 patient studies and 6 physician studies met inclusion criteria. Among the 73 patient studies, 57.5% examined patients with a cancer diagnosis, with breast (26.0%) and prostate (28.8%) cancers being most common. Interestingly, self-reported patient regret was relatively uncommon with an average prevalence across studies of 14.4%. Factors most often associated with regret included type of surgery, disease-specific quality of life, and shared decision making. Only 6 studies were identified that focused on physician regret; 2 pertained to surgical decision making. These studies primarily measured regret of omission and commission using hypothetical case scenarios and used the results to develop decision curve analysis tools.

CONCLUSION

Self-reported decisional regret was present in about 1 in 7 surgical patients. Factors associated with regret were both patient- and procedure related. While most studies focused on patient regret, little data exist on how physician regret affects shared decision making.

Quality of Life Following Prostatectomy as a Function of Surgery Type and Degree of Nerve Sparing

Objectives

To compare robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with conventional retropubic radical prostatectomy in maintaining pre-surgery levels of urinary and sexual functioning and to evaluate the efficacy of nerve sparing in prostatectomies in protecting urinary functioning.

Material and Methods

Patients (n = 385) receiving both surgical procedures were surveyed prior to surgery. Multiple measures, including the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, the Sexual Health Inventory for Men, and the International Prostate Symptom Score, assessed sexual and urinary function at an average of 12 months post-surgery.

Results

Across multiple measures, while controlling for pre-surgical sexual functioning, robotic-assisted surgery did not offer an advantage in maintaining sexual or urinary function an average of a year following the prostatectomy. Bilateral nerve sparing offered a strong and reliable advantage in the maintenance of sexual function, but not so regarding urinary function.

Conclusion

While robotic-assisted prostatectomies may offer a number of medical advantages over open procedures, we found no significant effect on important quality of life outcomes associated with the technique.

Treatment Decision Regret Among Long-Term Survivors of Localized Prostate Cancer: Results From the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study

Purpose To determine the demographic, clinical, decision-making, and quality-of-life factors that are associated with treatment decision regret among long-term survivors of localized prostate cancer. Patients and Methods We evaluated men who were age ≤ 75 years when diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between October 1994 and October 1995 in one of six SEER tumor registries and who completed a 15-year follow-up survey. The survey obtained demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical data and measured treatment decision regret, informed decision making, general- and disease-specific quality of life, health worry, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concern, and outlook on life. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify factors associated with regret. Results We surveyed 934 participants, 69.3% of known survivors. Among the cohort, 59.1% had low-risk tumor characteristics (PSA < 10 ng/mL and Gleason score < 7), and 89.2% underwent active treatment. Overall, 14.6% expressed treatment decision regret: 8.2% of those whose disease was managed conservatively, 15.0% of those who received surgery, and 16.6% of those who underwent radiotherapy. Factors associated with regret on multivariable analysis included reporting moderate or big sexual function bother (reported by 39.0%; OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.51 to 5.0), moderate or big bowel function bother (reported by 7.7%; OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.04 to 5.15), and PSA concern (mean score 52.8; OR, 1.01 per point change; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02). Increasing age at diagnosis and report of having made an informed treatment decision were inversely associated with regret. Conclusion Regret was a relatively infrequently reported outcome among long-term survivors of localized prostate cancer; however, our results suggest that better informing men about treatment options, in particular, conservative treatment, might help mitigate long-term regret. These findings are timely for men with low-risk cancers who are being encouraged to consider active surveillance.

Robotic Surgical System for Radical Prostatectomy: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the second most common type of cancer in Canadian men. Radical prostatectomy is one of the treatment options available, and involves removing the prostate gland and surrounding tissues. In recent years, surgeons have begun to use robot-assisted radical prostatectomy more frequently. We aimed to determine the clinical benefits and harms of the robotic surgical system for radical prostatectomy (robot-assisted radical prostatectomy) compared with the open and laparoscopic surgical methods. We also assessed the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer in Ontario.

METHODS

We performed a literature search and included prospective comparative studies that examined robot-assisted versus open or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. The outcomes of interest were perioperative, functional, and oncological. The quality of the body of evidence was examined according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 1-year time horizon. The potential long-term benefits of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for functional and oncological outcomes were also evaluated in a 10-year Markov model in scenario analyses. In addition, we conducted a budget impact analysis to estimate the additional costs to the provincial budget if the adoption of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were to increase in the next 5 years. A needs assessment determined that the published literature on patient perspectives was relatively well developed, and that direct patient engagement would add relatively little new information.

RESULTS

Compared with the open approach, we found robot-assisted radical prostatectomy reduced length of stay and blood loss (moderate quality evidence) but had no difference or inconclusive results for functional and oncological outcomes (low to moderate quality evidence). Compared with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy had no difference in perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes (low to moderate quality evidence). Compared with open radical prostatectomy, our best estimates suggested that robot-assisted prostatectomy was associated with higher costs ($6,234) and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (0.0012). The best estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $5.2 million per QALY gained. However, if robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were assumed to have substantially better long-term functional and oncological outcomes, the ICER might be as low as $83,921 per QALY gained. We estimated the annual budget impact to be $0.8 million to $3.4 million over the next 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence that robot-assisted radical prostatectomy improves functional and oncological outcomes compared with open and laparoscopic approaches. However, compared with open radical prostatectomy, the costs of using the robotic system are relatively large while the health benefits are relatively small.

Longitudinal regret after treatment for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer patients diagnosed with low- and intermediate-risk disease have several treatment options. Decisional regret after treatment is a concern, especially when poor oncologic outcomes or declines in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) occur. This study assessed determinants of longitudinal decisional regret in prostate cancer patients attending a multidisciplinary clinic and treated with radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), brachytherapy (BT), or active surveillance (AS).

METHODS

Patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center who attended a multidisciplinary clinic were enrolled into a prospective study from 2006 to 2014. The Decision Regret Scale was administered at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months posttreatment. HRQoL was also assessed at regular intervals using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite and 36-item RAND Medical Outcomes Study Short Form questionnaires. Adjusted probabilities of reporting regret were estimated via multivariable logistic regression fitted with generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

A total of 652 patients met the inclusion criteria (395 RP, 141 EBRT, 41 BT, 75 AS). Decisional regret was consistently low after all of these treatments. In multivariable models, only African American race (odds ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.47) was associated with greater regret across time. Age and control preference were marginally associated with regret. Regret scores were similar between RP patients who did and did not experience biochemical recurrence. Declines in HRQoL were weakly correlated with greater decisional regret.

CONCLUSION

In the context of a multidisciplinary clinic, decisional regret did not differ significantly between treatment groups but was greater in African Americans and those reporting poorer HRQoL. Cancer 2017;123:4252-4258. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments for patient-centered outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA Compliant)

BACKGROUND

In the context of prostate cancer (PCa) characterized by the multiple alternative treatment strategies, comparative effectiveness analysis is essential for informed decision-making. We analyzed the comparative effectiveness of PCa treatments through systematic review and meta-analysis with a focus on outcomes that matter most to newly diagnosed localized PCa patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of literature published in English from 1995 to October 2016. A search strategy was employed using terms "prostate cancer," "localized," "outcomes," "mortality," "health related quality of life," and "complications" to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective, and retrospective studies. For observational studies, only those adjusting for selection bias using propensity-score or instrumental-variables approaches were included. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratio was used to assess all-cause and disease-specific mortality. Funnel plots were used to assess the level of bias.

RESULTS

Our search strategy yielded 58 articles, of which 29 were RCTs, 6 were prospective studies, and 23 were retrospective studies. The studies provided moderate data for the patient-centered outcome of mortality. Radical prostatectomy demonstrated mortality benefit compared to watchful waiting (all-cause HR = 0.63 CI = 0.45, 0.87; disease-specific HR = 0.48 CI = 0.40, 0.58), and radiation therapy (all-cause HR = 0.65 CI = 0.57, 0.74; disease-specific HR = 0.51 CI = 0.40, 0.65). However, we had minimal comparative information about tradeoffs between and within treatment for other patient-centered outcomes in the short and long-term.

CONCLUSION

Lack of patient-centered outcomes in comparative effectiveness research in localized PCa is a major hurdle to informed and shared decision-making. More rigorous studies that can integrate patient-centered and intermediate outcomes in addition to mortality are needed.

Evaluation of Incontinence after Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Using the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire Short Form and Noting the Number of Safety Pads Needed by Japanese Patients

BACKGROUND

The definition of continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) has not been consistently defined, with many studies only noting the amount of safety pads used. We therefore examined what definition of continence would be appropriate, employing both the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire Short Form (ICIQ-SF) and the number of pads used by patients. We also evaluated the relationship between the number of pads used and degree of incontinence.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RARP between October 2010 and July 2014 in our department were included in the present study. All patients were evaluated by ICIQ-SF and the number of pads used 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Frequency of incontinence and amount of incontinence were evaluated by ICIQ-SF Questions 1 and 2 respectively at 12 months. Quality of life (QOL) was evaluated by ICIQ-SF Question 3 at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after RARP.

RESULTS

The overall study population was 156 patients. In Question 1, 19 patients answered that they leaked urine several times a day, but 5 patients did not use pads, and 8 patients were using only 1 pad a day. In Question 2, 8 patients answered that they leaked a moderate amount of urine, but 2 patients did not use any pads, and 3 patients used only 1 pad a day. QOL showed significant differences between using no pad, 1 pad, or ≥ 2 pads at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after RARP.

CONCLUSION

Simply noting the number of pads used by a patient is an insufficient way to evaluate incontinence after RARP. Assessment by an appropriate questionnaire is also needed.

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy learning curve for experienced laparoscopic surgeons: does it really exist?

Background

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) is a minimally invasive procedure that could have a reduced learning curve for unfamiliar laparoscopic surgeon. However, there are no consensuses regarding the impact of previous laparoscopic experience on the learning curve of RALP. We report on a functional and perioperative outcome comparison between our initial 60 cases of RALP and last 60 cases of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), performed by three experienced laparoscopic surgeons with a 200+LRP cases experience.

Materials and Methods

Between January 2010 and September 2013, a total of 60 consecutive patients who have undergone RALP were prospectively evaluated and compared to the last 60 cases of LRP. Data included demographic data, operative duration, blood loss, transfusion rate, positive surgical margins, hospital stay, complications and potency and continence rates.

Results

The mean operative time and blood loss were higher in RALP (236 versus 153 minutes, p<0.001 and 245.6 versus 202ml p<0.001). Potency rates at 6 months were higher in RALP (70% versus 50% p=0.02). Positive surgical margins were also higher in RALP (31.6% versus 12.5%, p=0.01). Continence rates at 6 months were similar (93.3% versus 89.3% p=0.43). Patient’s age, complication rates and length of hospital stay were similar for both groups.

Conclusions

Experienced laparoscopic surgeons (ELS) present a learning curve for RALP only demonstrated by longer operative time and clinically insignificant blood loss. Our initial results demonstrated similar perioperative and functional outcomes for both approaches. ELS were able to achieve satisfactory oncological and functional results during the learning curve period for RALP.

Extent and Predictors of Decision Regret about Health Care Decisions: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

People often face difficult decisions about their health and may later regret the choice that they made. However, little is known about the extent of decision regret in health care or its predictors. We systematically reviewed evidence about the extent of decision regret and its risk factors among individuals making health decisions.

METHODS

The data sources were Medline, Embase, and reverse citation searches in Google Scholar and Web of Science. Studies using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) to measure decision regret among individuals making nonhypothetical health decisions were included. There were no restrictions on study design, setting, or language. We extracted characteristics of included studies, measures of central tendency for DRS scores (0 = no regret, 100 = high regret), and all risk factors from published analyses. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis was performed owing to the heterogeneity of studies.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 372 unique titles, and 59 studies were included. The overall mean DRS score across studies was 16.5, and the median of the mean scores was 14.3 (standard deviation range = 2.2-34.5) (n = 44 studies). The risk factors most frequently reported to be associated with decision regret in multivariate analyses included higher decisional conflict, lower satisfaction with the decision, adverse physical health outcomes, and greater anxiety levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The extent of decision regret as assessed with the DRS in nonhypothetical health decisions was often low but reached high levels for some decisions. Several risk factors related to the decision-making process significantly predicted decision regret. Additional research into the psychometrics of the DRS and the relevance of scores for clinicians and patients would increase the validity of decision regret as a patient-reported outcome.

da Vinci and Open Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Analysis of Insurance Costs

PURPOSE

To assess clinical outcomes and reimbursement costs of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies in Germany.

METHODS

Perioperative data of 499 open (2003-2006) and 932 (2008-2010) robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies as well as longitudinal reimbursement costs of an anonymized health insurance research database from Germany containing data of patients who underwent robotic-assisted or open radical prostatectomy were retrospectively analysed in a single-centre study.

RESULTS

Significantly better outcomes after robotic-assisted vs. open prostatectomy were observed in regards to positive surgical margins (13.3 vs. 22.4%; p < 0.0001), intraoperative transfusions (0.1 vs. 2.6%; p < 0.0001), hospitalization (8.7 vs. 15.2 days; p < 0.0001) and duration of catheter (6.6 vs. 12.8 days; p < 0.0001). Operating time was significantly longer with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy when compared to open surgery (184.4 vs. 128.0 min; p < 0.0001), while intraoperative complications showed a similar occurrence between both groups. Significant fewer postoperative complications were observed after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (26.5 vs. 42.5%; p < 0.0001) and rate of re-admission was lower for the robotic patients (13.6 vs. 19.4%; p = 0.0050). While insurance costs were higher in the 2 years before radical prostatectomy for the patients who underwent a robotic procedure (4,241.60 vs. 3,410.23 €; p = 0.202), additive costs of care of the year of surgery plus the 2 following years were less for the robotic cohort when compared to the costs incurred by the open group (21,673.71 vs. 24,512.37 €; p = 0.1676).

CONCLUSIONS

The observed clinical advantages of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy seem to result in reduced health insurance cost postoperatively when compared to open surgery. This should be taken into consideration regarding reimbursement and implementation of a clinically superior method.

What couples say about their recovery of sexual intimacy after prostatectomy: toward the development of a conceptual model of couples' sexual recovery after surgery for prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Interventions designed to help couples recover sexual intimacy after prostatectomy have not been guided by a comprehensive conceptual model.

AIM

We examined a proposed biopsychosocial conceptual model of couples' sexual recovery that included functional, psychological, and relational aspects of sexuality, surgery-related sexual losses, and grief and mourning as recovery process.

METHODS

We interviewed 20 couples preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. between 2010 and 2012. Interviews were analyzed with Analytic Induction qualitative methodology, using NVivo software. Paired t-tests described functional assessment data. Study findings led to a revised conceptual model.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Couples' experiences were assessed through semi-structured interviews; male participants' sexual function was assessed with the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite and female participants' sexual function with the Female Sexual Function Index.

RESULTS

Preoperatively, 30% of men had erectile dysfunction (ED) and 84% of partners were postmenopausal. All valued sexual recovery, but worried about cancer spread and surgery side effects. Faith in themselves and their surgeons led 90% of couples to overestimate erectile recovery. Postoperatively, most men had ED and lost confidence. Couples' sexual activity decreased. Couples reported feeling loss and grief: cancer diagnosis was the first loss, followed by surgery-related sexual losses. Couples' engagement in intentional sex, patients' acceptance of erectile aids, and partners' interest in sex aided the recovery of couples' sexual intimacy recovery. Unselfconscious sex, not returning to erectile function baseline, was seen as the end point. Survey findings documented participants' sexual function losses, confirming qualitative findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Couples' sexual recovery requires addressing sexual function, feelings about losses, and relationship simultaneously. Perioperative education should emphasize the roles of nerve damage in ED and grief and mourning in sexual recovery.