articleJAMAOct 13, 2009Closed access

Comparative Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Prostatectomy

Brigham and Women's Hospital

PubMed
Indexed incrossrefpubmed

Abstract

Objective

To determine the comparative effectiveness of MIRP vs RRP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Population-based observational cohort study using US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare linked data from 2003 through 2007. We identified men with prostate cancer who underwent MIRP (n = 1938) vs RRP (n = 6899). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared postoperative 30-day complications, anastomotic stricture 31 to 365 days postoperatively, long-term incontinence and erectile dysfunction more than 18 months postoperatively, and postoperative use of additional cancer therapies, a surrogate for cancer control.

Results

Among men undergoing prostatectomy, use of MIRP increased from 9.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1%-10.5%) in 2003 to 43.2% (95% CI, 39.6%-46.9%) in 2006-2007. Men undergoing MIRP vs RRP were more likely to be recorded as Asian (6.1% vs 3.2%), less likely to be recorded as black (6.2% vs 7.8%) or Hispanic (5.6% vs 7.9%), and more likely to live in areas with at least 90% high school graduation rates (50.2% vs 41.0%) and with median incomes of at least $60,000 (35.8% vs 21.5%) (all P

Citation impact

820
total citations
FWCI
70.75
Percentile
100%
References
61
Citations per year

Authors

1

Topics & keywords

Keywords
  • Medicine
  • Prostatectomy
  • Prostate cancer
  • Urology
  • Confidence interval
  • Population
  • Surgery
  • Internal medicine
No related works found for this paper.