Outcomes assessment in men undergoing open retropubic radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

Keith J. Kowalczyk, Hua yin Yu, William Ulmer, Stephen Williams, Jim C. Hu

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To review the various methods of outcomes assessment used for effectiveness studies comparing retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). Methods: A review of the peer reviewed literature was performed for reported series of RRP, LRP, and RALP using Pubmed and MEDLINE with emphasis on comparing perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes. Common methods used for outcomes assessment were categorized and compared, highlighting the pros and cons of each approach. Results: The majority of the literature comparing RRP, LRP, and RALP comes in the form of observational data or administrative data from secondary datasets. While randomized controlled trials are ideal for outcomes assessment, only one such study was identified and was limited. Non-randomized observational studies contribute to the majority of data, however are limited due to retrospective study design, lack of consistent endpoints, and limited application to the general community. Administrative data provide accurate assessment of operative outcomes in both academic and community settings, however has limited ability to convey accurate functional outcomes. Conclusions: Non-randomized observational studies and secondary data are useful resources for assessment of outcomes; however, limitations exist for both. Neither is without flaws, and conclusions drawn from either should be viewed with caution. Until standardized prospective comparative analyses of RRP, LRP, and RALP are established, comparative outcomes data will remain imperfect. Urologic researchers must strive to provide the best available outcomes data through accurate prospective data collection and consistent outcomes reporting.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)85-89
Number of pages5
JournalWorld Journal of Urology
Volume30
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Robotics
Prostatectomy
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Observational Studies
Peer Review
Aptitude
PubMed
MEDLINE
Randomized Controlled Trials
Retrospective Studies
Research Personnel

Keywords

  • Minimally invasive
  • Outcomes
  • Prostate cancer
  • Radical prostatectomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Outcomes assessment in men undergoing open retropubic radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. / Kowalczyk, Keith J.; Yu, Hua yin; Ulmer, William; Williams, Stephen; Hu, Jim C.

In: World Journal of Urology, Vol. 30, No. 1, 02.2012, p. 85-89.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{8e10e792469f4ccf8863e610afa45bb7,
title = "Outcomes assessment in men undergoing open retropubic radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy",
abstract = "Objectives: To review the various methods of outcomes assessment used for effectiveness studies comparing retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). Methods: A review of the peer reviewed literature was performed for reported series of RRP, LRP, and RALP using Pubmed and MEDLINE with emphasis on comparing perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes. Common methods used for outcomes assessment were categorized and compared, highlighting the pros and cons of each approach. Results: The majority of the literature comparing RRP, LRP, and RALP comes in the form of observational data or administrative data from secondary datasets. While randomized controlled trials are ideal for outcomes assessment, only one such study was identified and was limited. Non-randomized observational studies contribute to the majority of data, however are limited due to retrospective study design, lack of consistent endpoints, and limited application to the general community. Administrative data provide accurate assessment of operative outcomes in both academic and community settings, however has limited ability to convey accurate functional outcomes. Conclusions: Non-randomized observational studies and secondary data are useful resources for assessment of outcomes; however, limitations exist for both. Neither is without flaws, and conclusions drawn from either should be viewed with caution. Until standardized prospective comparative analyses of RRP, LRP, and RALP are established, comparative outcomes data will remain imperfect. Urologic researchers must strive to provide the best available outcomes data through accurate prospective data collection and consistent outcomes reporting.",
keywords = "Minimally invasive, Outcomes, Prostate cancer, Radical prostatectomy",
author = "Kowalczyk, {Keith J.} and Yu, {Hua yin} and William Ulmer and Stephen Williams and Hu, {Jim C.}",
year = "2012",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1007/s00345-011-0662-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "85--89",
journal = "World Journal of Urology",
issn = "0724-4983",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcomes assessment in men undergoing open retropubic radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

AU - Kowalczyk, Keith J.

AU - Yu, Hua yin

AU - Ulmer, William

AU - Williams, Stephen

AU - Hu, Jim C.

PY - 2012/2

Y1 - 2012/2

N2 - Objectives: To review the various methods of outcomes assessment used for effectiveness studies comparing retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). Methods: A review of the peer reviewed literature was performed for reported series of RRP, LRP, and RALP using Pubmed and MEDLINE with emphasis on comparing perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes. Common methods used for outcomes assessment were categorized and compared, highlighting the pros and cons of each approach. Results: The majority of the literature comparing RRP, LRP, and RALP comes in the form of observational data or administrative data from secondary datasets. While randomized controlled trials are ideal for outcomes assessment, only one such study was identified and was limited. Non-randomized observational studies contribute to the majority of data, however are limited due to retrospective study design, lack of consistent endpoints, and limited application to the general community. Administrative data provide accurate assessment of operative outcomes in both academic and community settings, however has limited ability to convey accurate functional outcomes. Conclusions: Non-randomized observational studies and secondary data are useful resources for assessment of outcomes; however, limitations exist for both. Neither is without flaws, and conclusions drawn from either should be viewed with caution. Until standardized prospective comparative analyses of RRP, LRP, and RALP are established, comparative outcomes data will remain imperfect. Urologic researchers must strive to provide the best available outcomes data through accurate prospective data collection and consistent outcomes reporting.

AB - Objectives: To review the various methods of outcomes assessment used for effectiveness studies comparing retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). Methods: A review of the peer reviewed literature was performed for reported series of RRP, LRP, and RALP using Pubmed and MEDLINE with emphasis on comparing perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes. Common methods used for outcomes assessment were categorized and compared, highlighting the pros and cons of each approach. Results: The majority of the literature comparing RRP, LRP, and RALP comes in the form of observational data or administrative data from secondary datasets. While randomized controlled trials are ideal for outcomes assessment, only one such study was identified and was limited. Non-randomized observational studies contribute to the majority of data, however are limited due to retrospective study design, lack of consistent endpoints, and limited application to the general community. Administrative data provide accurate assessment of operative outcomes in both academic and community settings, however has limited ability to convey accurate functional outcomes. Conclusions: Non-randomized observational studies and secondary data are useful resources for assessment of outcomes; however, limitations exist for both. Neither is without flaws, and conclusions drawn from either should be viewed with caution. Until standardized prospective comparative analyses of RRP, LRP, and RALP are established, comparative outcomes data will remain imperfect. Urologic researchers must strive to provide the best available outcomes data through accurate prospective data collection and consistent outcomes reporting.

KW - Minimally invasive

KW - Outcomes

KW - Prostate cancer

KW - Radical prostatectomy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84856213896&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84856213896&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00345-011-0662-7

DO - 10.1007/s00345-011-0662-7

M3 - Review article

VL - 30

SP - 85

EP - 89

JO - World Journal of Urology

JF - World Journal of Urology

SN - 0724-4983

IS - 1

ER -