Does partnership status affect the quality of life of men having robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localised prostate cancer?

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
pp. 51-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam S. Dowrick ◽  
Addie C. Wootten ◽  
Mari Botti
2004 ◽  
Vol 171 (4S) ◽  
pp. 38-38
Author(s):  
Laura E. Crocitto ◽  
Timothy Wilson ◽  
Jeffrey S. Yoshida ◽  
Soroush A. Ramin ◽  
Mark H. Kawachi

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eoin Dinneen ◽  
Jack Grierson ◽  
Ricardo Almeida Magana ◽  
Rosie Clow ◽  
Aiman Haider ◽  
...  

Abstract BackgroundRobotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a first-line curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Postoperative erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence are common associated adverse side effects that can negatively impact patients’ quality of life. Preserving the lateral neurovascular bundles (NS) during RARP improves functional outcomes. However, selecting men for NS may be difficult when there is concern about incurring in positive surgical margin (PSM) which in turn risks adverse oncological outcomes. The NeuroSAFE technique (intra-operative frozen section examination of the neurovascular structure adjacent prostate margin) can provide real-time pathological consult to promote optimal NS while avoiding PSM.MethodsNeuroSAFE PROOF is a single-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which men are randomly allocated 1:1 to either NeuroSAFE RARP or standard RARP. Men electing for RARP as primary treatment, who are continent and have good baseline erectile function (EF), defined by International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score>21, are eligible. NS in the intervention arm is guided by the NeuroSAFE technique. NS in the standard arm is based on standard of care, i.e., a pre-operative image-based planning meeting, patient-specific clinical information, and digital rectal examination. The primary outcome is assessment of EF at 12-months. The primary endpoint is the proportion of men who achieve IIEF-5 score ≥ 21. A sample size of 404 was calculated to give a power of 90% to detect a difference of 14% between groups based on a feasibility study. Oncological outcomes are continuously monitored by an independent Data Monitoring Committee. Key secondary outcomes include urinary continence at 3 months assessed by the international consultation on incontinence questionnaire, rate of biochemical recurrence, EF recovery at 24-months, and difference in quality of life.DiscussionThe NeuroSAFE PROOF is the first RCT of intra-operative frozen section in radical prostatectomy in the world. It is properly powered to evaluate a difference in the recovery of EF for men undergoing RARP assessed by patient reported outcome measures. It will provide evidence to guide the use of the NeuroSAFE technique around the world.Trial registration: NCT03317990 (23 October 2017). Regional Ethics Committee; reference 17/LO/1978.


2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-20
Author(s):  
Keeree Komvuttikarn ◽  
◽  
Premsant Sangkum ◽  
Wisoot Kongchareonsombat ◽  
Kittinut Kijvikai ◽  
...  

Objectives: To compare the total medical cost and post-operative quality of life between laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) and to discuss the cost differences of each approach. Materials and Methods: Data were retrospectively reviewed from patients diagnosed with prostate cancer and who underwent LRP (n=68) or RALP (n=104) during a 36-month period. The prostate cancers of all patients were classified as low, intermediate, or high risk. Patient variables, inpatient hospital charges, outpatient total medical costs within 24 months and post-operative quality of life were compared. Results: The baseline patient characteristics were similar between each group. Rates of positive margins and the need for further cancer treatment were correlated with the burden of disease (highest in the high risk group). The RALP inpatient hospital charges were higher in all risk groups. However, the mean total outpatient hospital charges were comparable. The RALP group demonstrated a trend towards better sexual-related quality of life in all risk groups. However, urinary incontinence, urinary-related, bowel-related, vitality-related quality of life were not significantly different between LRP and RALP. Conclusion: From the payer’s perspective, RALP costs are higher than LRP costs. The clinical and quality of life benefits associated with RALP may not convert into a net savings of total medical costs within 24 months after surgery.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document