Impact of Hospital volume on postoperative outcomes after radical prostatectomy: A 5-Year nationwide database analysis

Comparison of the effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies based on complication rates: a retrospective observational study with administrative data from Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Radical prostatectomies can be performed using open retropubic, laparoscopic, or robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. The literature shows that short-term outcomes (in particular, inpatient complications) differ depending on the type of procedure. To date, these differences have only been examined and confirmed in isolated cases based on national routine data.

METHODS

The data was based on the Swiss Medical Statistics from 2016 to 2018 from a national survey of administrative data from all Swiss hospitals. Cases with the coded main diseases neoplasm of the prostate (ICD C61) and the main treatments of laparoscopic (CHOP 60.5X.20) or retropubic (CHOP 60.5X.30) radical prostatectomies were included, resulting in a total sample size of 8,593 cases.

RESULTS

A procedure-related complication occurred in 998 cases (11.6%). By surgical procedure, complication rates were 10.1% for robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy 9.0% for conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and 17.1% for open retropubic radical prostatectomy (p < 0.001). Conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies had a significantly lower risk of complications than retropubic procedures. Moreover, the risk of a procedure-related complication was almost twice as high in cases operated on retropubically; however, no significant difference was found between conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic cases.

DISCUSSION

The use of a surgical robot showed no advantages in radical prostatectomies regarding procedure-related during the hospital stay. However, both conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopically operated radical prostatectomies show better results than open retropubic procedures. Further studies on the long-term course of patients based on claims data are needed to confirm the inherent benefits of surgical robots in tandem with them being increasingly employed in hospitals.

Real-life Perioperative Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy using the French National Registry: A Plea for Promotion of Centralized Care and Access to Minimally Invasive Approaches

Radical prostatectomy (RP) can be performed using an open (ORP), laparoscopic (LRP) or robotic (RARP) approach. Most studies, even in experienced centers, have not provided solid evidence demonstrating better outcomes when using the robotic approach. In addition, one of the remaining concerns about RARP is its cost effectiveness, leading to no reimbursement for this surgical technique in some countries and thus health care inequality. We used data from a French national registry to improve knowledge of RP outcomes in a real-world scenario in order to guide and inform health care decision-makers. A total of 21 213 RP procedures were performed in 645 French centers in 2021 (ORP 20%, LRP 25%, and RARP 55% of cases). ORP was associated with longer hospital stay (p < 0.001), higher rates of postoperative complications (p < 0.001), fewer days out of hospital within 90 d of surgery (81.7 vs 83.6 vs 84.9 d for ORP vs LRP vs RARP; p < 0.00), and higher hospitalization costs (€2424 vs €1789 vs €1302). RARP is an optimal and cost-effective approach, with several advantages over ORP. Our data can be used by health care decision-makers to facilitate access to and reimbursement for the robotic approach for RP indications. PATIENT SUMMARY: For men with prostate cancer for whom surgery is recommended, surgeons can remove the prostate using open surgery or a keyhole approach with or without robot assistance. Open surgery has higher costs, more complications, and longer hospital stays.

Robotic-assisted surgery for prostatectomy - does the diffusion of robotic systems contribute to treatment centralization and influence patients' hospital choice?

BACKGROUND

Between 2008 and 2018, the share of robotic-assisted surgeries (RAS) for radical prostatectomies (RPEs) has increased from 3 to 46% in Germany. Firstly, we investigate if this diffusion of RAS has contributed to RPE treatment centralization. Secondly, we analyze if a hospital's use of an RAS system influenced patients' hospital choice.

METHODS

To analyze RPE treatment centralization, we use (bi-) annual hospital data from 2006 to 2018 for all German hospitals in a panel-data fixed effect model. For investigating RAS systems' influence on patients' hospital choice, we use patient level data of 4614 RPE patients treated in 2015. Employing a random utility choice model, we estimate the influence of RAS as well as specialization and quality on patients' marginal utilities and their according willingness to travel.

RESULTS

Despite a slight decrease in RPEs between 2006 and 2018, hospitals that invested in an RAS system could increase their case volumes significantly (+ 82% compared to hospitals that did not invest) contributing to treatment centralization. Moreover, patients are willing to travel longer for hospitals offering RAS (+ 22% than average travel time) and for specialization (+ 13% for certified prostate cancer treatment centers, + 9% for higher procedure volume). The influence of outcome quality and service quality on patients' hospital choice is insignificant or negligible.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, centralization is partly driven by (very) high-volume hospitals' investment in RAS systems and patient preferences. While outcome quality might improve due to centralization and according specialization, evidence for a direct positive influence of RAS on RPE outcomes still is ambiguous. Patients have been voting with their feet, but research yet has to catch up.

Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

To summarize recent evidence in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functional and oncological outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP) compared to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registry on 29 march 2021. Comparative studies, published since 2016, that reported on treatment with RP versus dose-escalated EBRT and ADT for high-risk non-metastatic PCa were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise quality and risk of bias. A qualitative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies, all non-randomized, met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessment indicated low (n = 14) to moderate/high (n = 5) risk of bias. Only three studies reported functional outcomes and/or HRQoL using different measurement instruments and methods. A clinically meaningful difference in HRQoL was not observed. All studies reported oncological outcomes and survival was generally good (5-year survival rates > 90%). In the majority of studies, a statistically significant difference between both treatment groups was not observed, or only differences in biochemical recurrence-free survival were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence clearly demonstrating superiority in terms of oncological outcomes of either RP or EBRT combined with ADT is lacking. Studies reporting functional outcomes and HRQoL are very scarce and the magnitude of the effect of RP versus dose-escalated EBRT with ADT on HRQoL and functional outcomes remains largely unknown.

Unwarranted Between-hospital Variation in Mortality, Readmission, and Length of Stay of Urological Admissions: An Important Trigger for Prioritising Quality Targets

BACKGROUND

Unwarranted between-hospital variation is a persistent health care quality issue. It is unknown whether urology patients are prone to this variation.

OBJECTIVE

To examine between-hospital variation in mortality, readmission, and length of stay for all 22 urological All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRGs).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study included administrative data from 320640 urological admissions in 99 (98%) Belgian acute-care hospitals between 2016 and 2018.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We used hierarchical mixed-effect logistic regression models to estimate hospital-specific and APR-DRG-specific risk-standardised rates for in-hospital mortality, 30-d readmission, and length of stay above the APR-DRG-specific 90th percentile. Between-hospital variation was assessed based on the estimated variance components. Associations of outcomes with patient and hospital characteristics and time trends were examined.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Our analysis revealed important between-hospital variation in mortality, readmission, and length of stay for urological pathologies, particularly for medical diagnoses. Significant variation was shown in all three outcomes for kidney and urinary tract infections; other kidney and urinary tract diagnoses, signs, and symptoms; urinary stones and acquired upper urinary tract obstruction; and kidney and urinary tract procedures for nonmalignancy. Lowering of mortality rates in upper-quartile hospitals to the median could potentially save 41.5% of deaths in these hospitals, with the largest absolute gain for kidney and urinary tract infections and kidney and urinary tract malignancy. Limitations included a likely underestimation of readmission rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Urological patient outcomes are characterised by unwarranted between-hospital variation. We recommend improvement initiatives to prioritise kidney and urinary tract infections because of significant variation across the three outcomes and the largest potential gain in lives saved.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We found notable between-hospital variation in mortality, readmission, and length of stay for urological hospital admissions in Belgium. As much as 41.5% of deaths could potentially be avoided if underperforming hospitals improved. Targeting kidney and urinary tract infections could help reduce variation.

Same-day-discharge Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: An Annual Countrywide Analysis

There are no countrywide data regarding the utilization of same-day-discharge (SDD) surgery for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). We aimed to evaluate the annual number of SDD RARP procedures in France and to compare postoperative outcomes in SDD versus non-SDD centers. Data for all 9651 patients undergoing RARP in France in 2020 were extracted from the central database of the national healthcare system. Endpoints were length of hospital stay, patient age, center volume, lymph node dissection, and the hospital readmission rate. Overall, 184 SDD cases (1.9%) were reported in 14.2% of RARP centers. The annual RARP and SDD RARP caseload ranged from 41 to 485, and from one to 47, respectively, in SDD centers. SDD was significantly associated with higher-volume centers (p < 0.001). No difference in readmission rate (7.9% vs 5.1%; p = 0.141) was observed for SDD versus non-SDD centers. Direct stay costs were estimated at €1457 in SDD centers compared to €2021 in non-SDD centers. The main limitation is the lack of detailed patient characteristics and readmission causes. This annual nationwide analysis suggests that SDD RARP remains infrequently used in routine practice in France despite being associated with comparable short-term outcomes after RARP and potential cost benefits.

Patient summary

We evaluated the use of robot-assisted removal of the prostate (RARP) with same-day hospital discharge in France for men with prostate cancer. In 2020, only 1.9% of the 9651 RARP procedures involved same-day discharge, even though the data show that this approach has lower costs and comparable safety.

A prehabilitation programme implemented before robot-assisted radical prostatectomy improves peri-operative outcomes and continence recovery

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of a routine, on-site, 1-day prehabilitation (PreHab) programme on peri-operative and continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All 303 consecutive RARPs performed between March 2018 and February 2020 since the routine implementation of PreHab were included in our study. PreHab was carried out according to the availability of the 1-day programme before the planned date of surgery (two sessions per month including four patients per session). The PreHab programme was implemented in 165 patients (54.5%). The primary endpoint was continence recovery, strictly defined as no safety pad use at 1 and 6 months. Secondary endpoints were peri-operative variables (blood loss, operating time, length of stay, transfusion, complications, and readmission rates). Comparisons were made according to whether the PreHab pathway was applied or not (PreHab+ vs PreHab-) in univariable and multivariable models.

RESULTS

The PreHab pathway was implemented for a stable proportion of patients over time (54.5%). The two cohorts were comparable in terms of preoperative and pathological features (P > 0.05). Length of stay was significantly shorter in the PreHab+ group (1.3 vs 1.9 days; P = 0.001). There was a trend towards fewer complications in the PreHab+ group (P = 0.061). Use of the PreHab pathway was independently correlated with higher continence rates at 1 month (37% vs 60%; P < 0.001) and 6 months (67.4% vs 87.3%; P < 0.001), even after controlling for age, body mass index, prostate volume, type of apical reconstruction, nerve-sparing surgery and lymph node dissection. The main limitation of the study was the absence of randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience demonstrates that the PreHab programme is the major predictor of improved peri-operative outcomes and continence recovery after RARP, with sustainable benefits 6 months after surgery.

Annual nationwide analysis of costs and post-operative outcomes after radical prostatectomy according to the surgical approach (open, laparoscopic, and robotic)

OBJECTIVE

Annual countrywide data are scarce when comparing surgical approaches in terms of hospital stay outcomes and costs for radical prostatectomy (RP). We aimed to assess the impact of surgical approach on post-operative outcomes and costs after RP by comparing open (ORP), laparoscopic (LRP), and robot-assisted (RARP) RP in the French healthcare system.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from all patients undergoing RP in France in 2020 were extracted from the central database of the national healthcare system. Primary endpoints were length of hospital stay (LOS including intensive care unit (ICU) stay if present), complications (estimated by severity index), hospital readmission rates (at 30 and 90 days), and direct costs of initial stay.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 19,018 RPs were performed consisting in ORP in 21.1%, LRP in 27.6%, and RARP in 51.3% of cases. RARP was associated with higher center volume (p < 0.001), lower complication rates (p < 0.001), shorter LOS (p < 0.001), and lower readmission rates (p = 0.004). RARP was associated with reduced direct stay costs (2286 euros) compared with ORP (4298 euros) and LRP (3101 euros). The main cost driver was length of stay. The main limitations were the lack of mid-term data, readmission details, and cost variations due to surgery system.

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide analysis demonstrates the benefits of RARP in terms of post-operative short-term outcomes. Higher costs related to the robotic system appear to be balanced by patient care improvements and reduced direct costs due to shorter LOS.

A 5-Year Contemporary Nationwide Evolution of the Radical Prostatectomy Landscape

The evolution in the past decade of recommendations for prostate cancer (PCa) management, from screening to surgical treatment, may have affected the radical prostatectomy (RP) landscape. However, comprehensive data at a national level remain scarce. We extracted 5-yr data for RP patients in France from the central database of the national health care system. The primary endpoints were surgical approach (open [ORP], laparoscopic [LRP], and robot-assisted RP [RARP]), length of stay (LOS), and complication and readmission rates. The annual number of RPs was stable during the study period. The proportion of RARPs increased from 39.8% in 2015 to 52.6% in 2019, whereas the proportion of ORPs decreased from 34.4% to 24.5%. LOS continuously decreased over time irrespective of the surgical approach. The proportion of centres in the highest quartile of hospital volume increased from 22.0% to 28.3% (p = 0.006). LOS and complication and readmission rates were significantly lower (p < 0.001) in the LRP cohort at each time point. National trends confirmed that RARP progressively replaced ORP, with a stable number of annual RPs over time. Greater centralisation and better early postoperative outcomes were observed with laparoscopy.

Patient summary

We reviewed French data for patients undergoing removal of the prostate for prostate cancer between 2015 and 2019. We found that robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery has increased over time and the length of hospital stays has decreased. Rates of complications and readmission were lower with minimally invasive surgery.