Open RP vs MIRP

If this study is accurate, it would go along with some rumors and unsubstantiated reports that higher rates of incontinence and ED were starting to be noticed in robotic prostate surgery, as opposed to open surgery. I am sure this report is not the last word though, as in all things PC.

There have been many studies that indicate little differences between the two types of surgery. The main advantage in robotic according to Dr Walsh is the decreased blood loss. The skill of the surgeon will have more impact on potency and continence than the type of surgery.
The most gifted surgeons achieve a 65% rate of effectiveness, meaning cure, potency and continence, "the trifecta".
With 2 samples less than 5% and a psa that is fully explained by your enlarged prostate, this condition is shared with about 1/2 the men of your age and most don't even know it.
What was the reason your doctor suggested a biopsy?
JohnT

Here is one article:

jco.ascopubs.org/content/26/14/2278.long

I don't think this one actually reports risks of incontinence or ED; it does discuss surgical complications.

Oh, this must be the followup article, which does:

jama.ama-assn.org/content/302/14/1557

This is a population based study, that is, it looks at a randomly chose portion of a whole population getting treated, in this case, Medicare patients from 2003 to 2007. It is affected by the fact that the treatments are not randomly chosen, and it includes all procedures regardless of the skill and experience of the surgeon. It doesn't show what happens under the best possible circumstances, but it is a snapshot of what is happening out in the real world. It is funded by a Dept of Defense training grant, so that should not be a source of bias. It's published in a major medical journal.

This seems like a good study that raises concerns that in everyday practice, around the US, robotic surgery during the years 2003-07 led to a higher percentage of ED and incontinence complications.

Post Edited (Postop) : 2/28/2011 11:28:32 AM (GMT-7)

The hope would be that there were a bunch of surgeons just starting out to use robotic surgery from 2003-2007, and that they weren't very good at it back then, and now have gotten better at it. Still, not an impressive performance by Leonardo (da Vinci).

Just to be upfront with biases, I had open and did well. The purpose of studies is too look objectively at the evidence, and not chose a treatment based on the fact that you talked to one person who did well with a particular treatment. This study was based on almost 9,000 men--that's a lot of prostates.

This study tells you that if you picked a surgeon randomly between 2003-7, you'd be out of the hospital quicker and less likely to have a transfusion with the robot, but would be more likely to have ED or incontinence. Of course, it's 2011. You wouldn't pick a surgeon randomly, but nonetheless, a lot of us pick a surgeon because they are close to where we live, they are covered by our insurance, or we like their personality. Those things don't necessarily predict surgical skills, it's kind of like picking one randomly.

It's likely that someone is going to update this study. At some point, there needs to be evidence of an improvement in long term results with the robot, so that it at least matches the outcomes seen with open surgery. I think most of us would trade a day in the hospital and a little extra discomfort for a good long term result.

Here is one surgeon who publishes figures that differ significantly from the ones in this study..

"Cancer Control
Nearly 95% of all organ-confined ART™ patients receive a negative surgical margin (no cancer is found on the specimen surface) on their surgical pathology report. In published long term follow-up studies performed by Dr. Tewari, this cancer control can translate to an over 90% 10-year survival rate in select patients.
ART™ Surgery
ART™ prostate surgery is minimally invasive. The instruments used are inserted through very small openings [more about ART™], transfusions are rare, pain medication is required sparingly, if at all, and the typical hospital stay is just 24 hours. The patient is discharged with instructions to get plenty of walking exercise and typically returns to our office seven days after discharge from the hospital to have his urinary catheter removed– in a five-minute outpatient procedure. Catheter removal may also be performed by the patient's regular urologist, should the patient be unable to return to Dr. Tewari's office.
Recovering After Surgery
The ART™ robotic surgical method is remarkable for its success in minimizing the effects treatment may have on bowel, urinary, and sexual functioning.

* Bowel symptoms, which can be a troublesome side effect of radiation treatment, are experienced by less than 2% of ART™ patients.
* Fully 87% of patients who experienced normal sexual functioning before surgery, and are candidates for nerve sparing, returned to function after ART™ surgical treatment.
* Recovery of urinary continence, which may be problematic any prostatectomy, is also improved with robotic surgery. Dr. Tewari's pioneering technique of bladder support reconstruction, a standard component of the ART™ procedure, is achieving continence in 80% of his patients at 1 month after surgery, and in 97% of his patients at 6 months after surgery!

Gee, Postop, you are right, that sounded just like a Commercial Telelvision Ad, must be a really amazing doctor with those kinds of results (if remotely true)