Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 325–331 | Cite as

Health-related quality of life after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

  • Hiroyuki Koike
  • Yasuo Kohjimoto
  • Akinori Iba
  • Kazuro Kikkawa
  • Shimpei Yamashita
  • Takashi Iguchi
  • Nagahide Matsumura
  • Isao Hara
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The objective of this study is to compare the quality of life (QOL) outcomes between laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Between July 2007 and July 2013, 229 patients with localized prostate cancer underwent LRP while 105 patients with localized prostate cancer underwent RARP between December 2012 and August 2014. We evaluated their QOL using the 8-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-8) and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index of Prostate (EPIC) questionnaires at preoperative and at postoperative 3, 6 and 12 months. In the LRP and RARP groups, over 80 and 90% of patients answered questionnaires at each follow-up time, respectively. At baseline QOL of EPIC and SF-8, there was no significant difference between LRP and RARP groups. At postoperative 3 months, Physical and Mental Components of SF-8 and Urinary Summary (U), all Urinary Subscales, Sexual Function and Bowel Function of EPIC showed significantly better scores in RARP group than in LRP group. At postoperative 6 and 12 months, there were no differences between LRP and RARP groups in terms of all QOL scores. RARP group showed better scores in SF-8 as well as urinary and sexual function of EPIC at postoperative-3 months. These differences disappeared at postoperative 6 and 12 months.

Keywords

Quality of life Prostate cancer Prostatectomy Incontinence 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Toshio Shimokawa for statistical support and Shenli Hew from the Department of Clinical Research Center, Wakayama Medical University, for proofreading and editing the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (authorization number: 1670) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

Hiroyuki Koike, Yasuo Kohjimoto, Yoshiki Kodama, Akinori Iba, Kazuro Kikkawa, Hiroki Kusumoto, Shimpei Yamashita, Takashi Iguchi, Nagahide Matsumura, Isao Hara declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Rider JR, Taari K, Busch C, Nordling S, Haggman M, Andersson SO, Spangberg A, Andren O, Palmgren J, Steineck G, Adami HO, Johansson JE (2014) Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 370:932–942CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Walsh PC (1980) Radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostatic carcinoma. Urol Clin N Am 7:583–591Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Porpiglia F, Morra I, Lucci Chiarissi M, Manfredi M, Mele F, Grande S, Ragni F, Poggio M, Fiori C (2013) Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 63:606–614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berge V, Berg RE, Hoff JR, Wessel N, Diep LM, Karlsen SJ, Eri LM (2013) A prospective study of transition from laparoscopic to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: quality of life outcomes after 36-month follow-up. Urology 81:781–786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guillonneau B, El-Fettouh H, Baumert H, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Fromont G, Vallancien G (2003) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1000 cases a Montsouris Institute. J Urol 169:1261–1266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patel VR, Palmer KJ, Coughlin G, Samavedi S (2008) Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: perioperative outcomes of 1500 cases. J Endourol Endourol Soc 22:2299–2305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patel VR, Coelho RF, Palmer KJ, Rocco B (2009) Periurethral suspension stitch during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique and continence outcomes. Eur Urol 56:472–478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hashine K, Yuasa A, Shinomori K, Ninomiya I, Kataoka M, Yamashita N (2011) Health-related quality of life after radical retropubic prostatectomy and permanent prostate brachytherapy: a 3-year follow-up study. Int J Urol Off J Jpn Urol Assoc 18:813–819Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wei JT, Dunn RL, Litwin MS, Sandler HM, Sanda MG (2000) Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology 56:899–905CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Takegami M, Suzukamo Y, Sanda MG, Kamoto T, Namiki S, Arai Y, Ogawa O, Fukuhara S, Kakehi Y (2005) [The Japanese translation and cultural adaptation of Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)]. Jpn J Urol (Nihon Hinyokika Gakkai zasshi) 96:657–669Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Park JW, Won Lee H, Kim W, Jeong BC, Jeon SS, Lee HM, Choi HY, Seo SI (2011) Comparative assessment of a single surgeon’s series of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: conventional versus robot-assisted. J Endourol Endourol Soc 25:597–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Orvieto MA, Sivaraman A, Palmer KJ, Coughlin G, Patel VR (2011) Influence of modified posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter on early recovery of continence and anastomotic leakage rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 59:72–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rocco B, Cozzi G, Spinelli MG, Coelho RF, Patel VR, Tewari A, Wiklund P, Graefen M, Mottrie A, Gaboardi F, Gill IS, Montorsi F, Artibani W, Rocco F (2012) Posterior musculofascial reconstruction after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 62:779–790CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hakimi AA, Faleck DM, Agalliu I, Rozenblit AM, Chernyak V, Ghavamian R (2011) Preoperative and intraoperative measurements of urethral length as predictors of continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol Endourol Soc 25:1025–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hamada A, Razdan S, Etafy MH, Fagin R, Razdan S (2014) Early return of continence in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy using modified maximal urethral length preservation technique. J Endourol Endourol Soc 28:930–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hara I, Kawabata G, Miyake H, Nakamura I, Hara S, Okada H, Kamidono S (2003) Comparison of quality of life following laparoscopic and open prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 169:2045–2048CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, Ahlering TE, Carroll PR, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Menon M, Patel VR, Shariat SF, Tewari AK, Van Poppel H, Zattoni F, Montorsi F, Mottrie A, Rosen RC, Wilson TG (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:382–404CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, Menon M, Montorsi F, Patel VR, Stolzenburg JU, Van der Poel H, Wilson TG, Zattoni F, Mottrie A (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:405–417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Menon M, Mottrie A, Patel VR, Van der Poel H, Rosen RC, Tewari AK, Wilson TG, Zattoni F, Montorsi F (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:418–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Shariat SF, Stolzenburg JU, Van Poppel H, Zattoni F, Montorsi F, Mottrie A, Wilson TG (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:431–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moran PS, O’Neill M, Teljeur C, Flattery M, Murphy LA, Smyth G, Ryan M (2013) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Urol Off J Jpn Urol Assoc 20:312–321Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robertson C, Close A, Fraser C, Gurung T, Jia X, Sharma P, Vale L, Ramsay C, Pickard R (2013) Relative effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BJU Int 112:798–812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Poel HG, Tillier C, de Blok WM, Acar C, van Muilekom EH, van den Bergh RC (2013) Interview-based versus questionnaire-based quality of life outcomes before and after prostatectomy. J Endourol Endourol Soc 27:1411–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroyuki Koike
    • 1
  • Yasuo Kohjimoto
    • 1
  • Akinori Iba
    • 1
  • Kazuro Kikkawa
    • 1
  • Shimpei Yamashita
    • 1
  • Takashi Iguchi
    • 1
  • Nagahide Matsumura
    • 1
  • Isao Hara
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyWakayama Medical UniversityWakayamaJapan

Personalised recommendations