Prospective comparison of the impact of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy on health-related quality of life and decision regret
Keywords:prostate cancer, quality of life, decision regret, radical prostatectomy, robotic surgery
Introduction: There is no conclusive evidence that the roboticassisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) is superior to conventional open radical prostatectomy (ORP) when it comes to recovery of urinary and sexual function, and that the former surgical option results in less decision regret.
Methods: Patients scheduled for both surgical procedures were surveyed prior to surgery, and then again at 6 and 12 months following treatment using the sexual and urinary modules of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) measure. Decision regret was measured at 12 months. Propensity score regression adjustment was used to account for differences between treatment groups by summarizing all covariate information into a single probability and to simulate randomization.
Results: At 12 months, urinary summary scores approached baseline levels, while urinary bother scores had returned to baseline. Sexual summary and bother mean scores decreased by about half of what they were at baseline for both treatment groups at 6 and 12 months. No significant differences in the groups’ sexual summary and bother domains were identified at either 6 or 12 months. Both groups’ scores for decision regret were low. Moderate correlations (r2 range -0.333 to -0.368) were between current levels of urinary and sexual function and decision regret at 12 months.
Conclusion: The results of our study found no significant difference in health-related quality of life outcomes based on surgical procedure at 12 months. Moreover, patients in both groups reported low levels of decision regret at 12 months. Further multi-site prospective studies are required to address this study’s limitations.
How to Cite
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.