Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Sep;8(3):156-61.
doi: 10.1159/000365708. Epub 2015 Sep 4.

Open Versus Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in Obese Men

Affiliations

Open Versus Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in Obese Men

Chandy Ellimoottil et al. Curr Urol. 2015 Sep.

Abstract

Objectives: Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been shown to reduce blood loss, peri-operative complications and length of stay when compared to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). We sought to determine whether the reported benefits of RARP over ORP translate to obese patients.

Patients and methods: We utilized the 2009-2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample to identify all obese men with prostate cancer who underwent ORP and RARP. Our primary outcome was the presence of a peri-operative adverse event (i.e. blood transfusion, complication, prolonged length of stay). We fit multivariable logistic regression models to examine whether RARP in obese patients was independently associated with decreased odds of all three outcomes.

Results: We identified 9,108 obese patients who underwent radical prostatectomy. On multivariable analysis, the use of RARP in the obese population was not independently associated with decreased odds of developing a peri-operative complication (OR = 0.81, CI: 0.58-1.13, p = 0.209). RARP was, however, associated with decreased odds of blood transfusion (OR = 0.17, CI: 0.10-0.30, p < 0.001) and prolonged length of stay (OR = 0.28, CI: 0.20-0.40, p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that in obese patients, the use of RARP may reduce length of stay and blood transfusions compared to ORP. Both approaches, however, are associated with similar odds of developing a complication.

Keywords: Obesity; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy; Robotic surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:9–29. - PubMed
    1. Trinh QD, Sammon J, Sun M, Ravi P, Ghani KR, Bianchi M, Jeong W, Shariat SF, Hansen J, Schmitges J, Jeldres C, Rogers CG, Peabody JO, Montorsi F, Menon M, Karakiewicz PI. Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol. 2012;61:679–685. - PubMed
    1. Hu JC, Wang Q, Pashos CL, Lipsitz SR, Keating NL. Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2278–2284. - PubMed
    1. Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Barry MJ, D'Amico AV, Weinberg AC, Keating NL. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2009;302:1557–1564. - PubMed
    1. Carter SC, Lipsitz S, Shih YC, Nguyen PL, Trinh QD, Hu JC. Population-based determinants of radical prostatectomy operative time. BJU Int. 2014;113:E112–118. - PubMed