Comparative Effectiveness in Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic versus Open Radical Cystectomy: Results from a Multicenter Contemporary Retrospective Cohort Study.


Journal

European urology focus
ISSN: 2405-4569
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Focus
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101665661

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 11 2020
Historique:
received: 16 09 2018
revised: 20 10 2018
accepted: 07 11 2018
pubmed: 21 11 2018
medline: 16 7 2021
entrez: 21 11 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The comparative effectiveness of robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) versus open radical cystectomy (ORC) in terms of perioperative outcomes is still a matter of debate affecting payors, physicians, and patients. To evaluate comparative perioperative and longer-term morbidity of RARC versus ORC in a multicenter contemporary retrospective cohort of patients. This retrospective multicenter study included patients with bladder cancer treated with radical cystectomy at 10 academic centers between 2000 and 2017. Intraoperative outcomes including blood loss and operative time as well as postoperative outcomes including time to discharge, complication, readmission, reoperation, and mortality rates at 30 and 90 d were assessed. Multiple imputation and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used. IPTW-multivariable-adjusted regression and logistic analyses were performed to evaluate the associations of RARC versus ORC with perioperative outcomes at 30 and 90 d. Overall, 1887 patients (1197 RARC and 690 ORC) were included in the study. After IPTW-adjusted analysis, no differences between the groups in terms of preoperative characteristics were observed. RARC was associated with lower blood loss (p<0.001), shorter length of stay (p<0.001), and longer operative time (p=0.007). On IPTW-adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses, no differences in terms of 30- and 90-d complications, reoperation, and mortality rates were observed. RARC was independently associated with a higher readmission rate at both 30 and 90 d. Limitations are mainly related to the retrospective nature of the study. While RARC was associated with less blood loss and shorter hospital stay, it also led to longer operation times and more readmissions. There were no differences in 30- and 90-d complications. Because there are no apparent differences in safety between ORC and RARC in expert centers, differences in oncologic and cost-effectiveness outcomes are likely to drive decision making regarding RARC utilization. In this study we investigated the differences between RARC and ORC in terms of perioperative outcomes. We found no difference in early and late complications. We concluded that, to date, differences in oncologic and cost-effectiveness outcomes should drive decision making regarding RARC utilization.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The comparative effectiveness of robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) versus open radical cystectomy (ORC) in terms of perioperative outcomes is still a matter of debate affecting payors, physicians, and patients.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate comparative perioperative and longer-term morbidity of RARC versus ORC in a multicenter contemporary retrospective cohort of patients.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This retrospective multicenter study included patients with bladder cancer treated with radical cystectomy at 10 academic centers between 2000 and 2017.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Intraoperative outcomes including blood loss and operative time as well as postoperative outcomes including time to discharge, complication, readmission, reoperation, and mortality rates at 30 and 90 d were assessed. Multiple imputation and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used. IPTW-multivariable-adjusted regression and logistic analyses were performed to evaluate the associations of RARC versus ORC with perioperative outcomes at 30 and 90 d.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
Overall, 1887 patients (1197 RARC and 690 ORC) were included in the study. After IPTW-adjusted analysis, no differences between the groups in terms of preoperative characteristics were observed. RARC was associated with lower blood loss (p<0.001), shorter length of stay (p<0.001), and longer operative time (p=0.007). On IPTW-adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses, no differences in terms of 30- and 90-d complications, reoperation, and mortality rates were observed. RARC was independently associated with a higher readmission rate at both 30 and 90 d. Limitations are mainly related to the retrospective nature of the study.
CONCLUSIONS
While RARC was associated with less blood loss and shorter hospital stay, it also led to longer operation times and more readmissions. There were no differences in 30- and 90-d complications. Because there are no apparent differences in safety between ORC and RARC in expert centers, differences in oncologic and cost-effectiveness outcomes are likely to drive decision making regarding RARC utilization.
PATIENT SUMMARY
In this study we investigated the differences between RARC and ORC in terms of perioperative outcomes. We found no difference in early and late complications. We concluded that, to date, differences in oncologic and cost-effectiveness outcomes should drive decision making regarding RARC utilization.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30455153
pii: S2405-4569(18)30334-1
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.11.002
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article Multicenter Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1233-1239

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Francesco Soria (F)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria; Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Studies of Torino, Turin, Italy.

Marco Moschini (M)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.

David D'andrea (D)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria.

Mohammad Abufaraj (M)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria; Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.

Beat Foerster (B)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland.

Romain Mathiéu (R)

Department of Urology, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France.

Killian M Gust (KM)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria.

Paolo Gontero (P)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Studies of Torino, Turin, Italy.

Giuseppe Simone (G)

"Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Rome, Italy.

Anoop Meraney (A)

Urology Division, Hartford Healthcare Medical Group, Hartford, CT, USA.

Suprita Krishna (S)

Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Badrinath Konety (B)

Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Morgan Rouprêt (M)

Sorbonne Université, ONCOTYPE-URO, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.

Matthew Perry (M)

Department of Urology, St George's Hospital, London, UK.

Edward Rowe (E)

Bristol Urological Institute, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.

Guillaume Ploussard (G)

Department of Urology, Saint Jean Languedoc Hospital, Toulouse, France.

Stephen A Boorjian (SA)

Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Peter Wiklund (P)

Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

Prasanna Sooriakumaran (P)

Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Uro-oncology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Shahrokh F Shariat (SF)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. Electronic address: shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH