Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes After Open or Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

Overview

The goal of the study is to look at surgical recovery and quality of life for men who have an open versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RP). RP is a procedure that removes the prostate gland. We want to see how long it will take you to return to health and strength after surgery. Quality-of-life (QOL) means how you feel about your life and your treatment of prostate cancer. The QOL surveys ask questions about your sexual, urinary and bowel functions. We will also ask questions about your use of health care services, out-of-pocket-spending on medical care and about your return to work, in order to learn about the financial impact of prostate cancer treatment. We hope that the surveys will help show how prostate cancer treatments affect your daily life after surgery.

This study will prospectively assess clinical outcomes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in men undergoing open, or robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Open radical prostatectomy is a frequently performed treatment for patients with clinically localized (cT1-T2) prostate cancer. The open technique stands as a benchmark against which all other treatments, including new surgical techniques, must be compared. Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is considered an alternative surgical option for clinically localized prostate cancer. While this minimally invasive technique is more frequently being performed in the United States, a detailed comparison of the open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic techniques has not been performed. The relative risks and benefits of these surgical treatment options have not been explored in a contemporary group of patients treated at the same center by surgeons experienced in the open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic techniques. This study will address this deficiency in that follow-up information will be collected prospectively in consecutive patients undergoing open or robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. While a prospective, randomized trial might be considered a more appropriate methodology to conduct such a comparative study, we have no baseline information, no guidelines to assess robotic-assisted laparoscopic competence, and a lack of skilled robotic-assisted laparoscopic pelvic surgeons to justify a lengthy and expensive trial. We will also collect information on health service utilization and employment during the 12-month postoperative period in order to assess the economic impacts of the different surgical approaches. While results from our proposed study will not necessarily be generalizable to all surgeons and may very well be a comparison of surgeons rather than techniques, the results will provide an initial assessment comparing experts in the open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic techniques. To date, no such comparison has been published. To our knowledge, no other center has expert surgeons in these techniques where such a study would be feasible. Because open techniques have improved dramatically over the past several years, and because the baseline data to be recorded in this proposal is not currently collected, use of historical controls for open radical prostatectomy would be inappropriate.