Search

Although most prostatectomy studies emphasize optimal nerve-sparing dissection planes, subtle technical variation also affects functional outcomes. The impact of minimizing assistant/surgeon tension on urinary function has not been quantified. We assess urinary function after attenuating neurovascular bundle (NVB) and rhabdosphincter tension during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Retrospective study of prospectively collected data for 268 (RARP-T) versus 342 (RARP-0T) men with versus without tension on the NVB and rhabdosphincter during RARP. Outcomes compared include Expanded Prostate Cancer Index (EPIC) urinary function, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, and positive surgical margins (PSM). In unadjusted analysis, men undergoing RARP-T versus RARP-0T were older, had higher biopsy and pathologic Gleason grade, and higher preoperative prostate specific antigen (all p ≤ 0.023). Baseline urinary function was similar. Postoperatively, RARP-0T versus RARP-T was associated with higher 5-month urinary function scores (69.7 versus 64, p = 0.049). In adjusted analyses, RARP-0T versus RARP-T was associated with improved 5-month urinary function [Parameter Estimate (PE) 7.37, Standard Error (SE) 2.67, p = 0.006], while bilateral versus non-/unilateral nerve-sparing was associated with improved 12-month urinary function and continence (both p ≤ 0.035). RARP-0T versus RARP-T was associated with shorter operative times (PE 6.66, SE 1.90, p = 0.001) and higher EBL (PE 20.88, SE 6.49, p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in PSM. While the use of tension aids in dissection of anatomic planes, avoidance of NVB counter-traction and minimizing tension on the rhabdosphincter during apical dissection attenuates neuropraxia and leads to earlier urinary function recovery. Bilateral versus non-/unilateral nerve-sparing also improves urinary function recovery.

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). 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. 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. 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.

Health services research (HSR) is increasingly important given the focus on patient-centered, cost-effective, high-quality health care. We examine how HSR affects contemporary evidence-based urologic practice and its role in shaping future urologic research and care. PubMed, urologic texts, and lay literature were reviewed for terms pertaining to HSR/outcomes research and urologic disease processes. HSR is a broad discipline that focuses on access, cost, and outcomes of Health care. Its use has been applied to a myriad of urologic conditions to identify deficiencies in access, to evaluate cost-effectiveness of therapies, and to evaluate structural, process, and outcome quality measures. HSR utilizes an evidence-based approach to identify the most effective ways to organize/manage, finance, and deliver high-quality urologic care and to tailor care optimized to individuals.