MP40-01 WHO BENEFITS FROM ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY IN TERMS OF FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME?

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized: Surgical Therapy I1 Apr 2016MP40-01 WHO BENEFITS FROM ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY IN TERMS OF FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME? Masahiro Takahashi, Koji Mitsuzuka, Yasuhiro Kaiho, Akihiro Ito, and Yoichi Arai Masahiro TakahashiMasahiro Takahashi More articles by this author , Koji MitsuzukaKoji Mitsuzuka More articles by this author , Yasuhiro KaihoYasuhiro Kaiho More articles by this author , Akihiro ItoAkihiro Ito More articles by this author , and Yoichi AraiYoichi Arai More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.147AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Many reports suggest that robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) provides better functional outcomes compared to open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). This study compared urinary and sexual function outcomes between RARP and RRP, to identify those patients who would benefit from RARP. METHODS Between 2011 and 2014, a total of 174 men who underwent radical prostatectomy were prospectively enrolled. Of these, 86 RARP and 76 RRP patients completed the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire at baseline and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after prostatectomy. Urinary function score (UF), urinary bother score (UB), sexual function score (SF), and sexual bother score (SB) were compared between groups. Pre- and intraoperative factors associated with functional outcomes were examined, including age, prostate volume, body mass index (BMI), method of RP, and degree of nerve sparing. Recovery of function or bother was determined as the mean percentage recovery from baseline score. RESULTS Pre- and intraoperative factors were not significantly different between groups. SF recovery was significantly better with RARP than with RRP, and this finding was more noticeable in patients with unilateral nerve sparing patients (at 6 months after surgery: RARP 37.7%, RRP 13.9%; p=0.04). For younger patients (<65 years old), SB recovery was significantly better with RARP than with RRP (at 12 months after surgery: RARP 102.3%, RRP 76.4%; p=0.04). For elderly patients (≥65 years old), UF recovery at 1 month was significantly better with RARP (72.1%) than with RRP (60.6%; p=0.01). Recovery of UB was not significantly different between groups at any time point. BMI and prostate volume showed no associations with differences in functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS RARP was superior to RRP in terms of SF recovery, and this finding was more noticeable in those patients with unilateral nerve sparing. Younger patients with RARP were more likely to achieve SB recovery. Regarding early recovery of UF, elderly men were more likely to benefit from RARP. Neither BMI nor prostate volume appeared to be associated with differences in outcomes between RARP and RRP. This information may be useful for patients when considering treatment for localized prostate cancer. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e550 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Masahiro Takahashi More articles by this author Koji Mitsuzuka More articles by this author Yasuhiro Kaiho More articles by this author Akihiro Ito More articles by this author Yoichi Arai More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...