Surgeon Adoption of Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy. Issue 6 (November 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Anderson, Christopher B.; Atoria, Coral L.; Touijer, Karim; Ehdaie, Behfar; Elkin, Elena B.
• Is Part Of: Urology practice. Volume 3:Issue 6(2016)
• Publication Date: 2016-11
• Subjects: prostatectomy -- robotics -- prostatic neoplasms
• DOI: 10.1016/j.urpr.2015.11.002
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2352-0779

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: : Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy has become the most common surgical treatment for prostate cancer. In this study we describe patterns of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy adoption among surgeons who performed open radical prostatectomy before their first minimally invasive radical prostatectomy and those who did not. Methods: : We performed a retrospective cohort study using the population based SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)‐Medicare data set. We identified all surgeons who performed minimally invasive radical prostatectomy in 2003 to 2010 in men with prostate cancer 66 years old or older. Surgeons were classified as "converters" if they performed open radical prostatectomy before their first minimally invasive radical prostatectomy or "de novos" if they had not. We estimated annual minimally invasive radical prostatectomy volume and the proportion of prostatectomies performed minimally invasively. We used logistic regression to identify predictors of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy discontinuation. Results: : A total of 11, 511 minimally invasive radical prostatectomies were performed by 738 minimally invasive radical prostatectomy surgeons (converters 337 and de novos 401). Converters performed 55% of all minimally invasive radical prostatectomies and had higher median annual minimally invasive radical prostatectomy volume than de novos (4 vs 2). About 34% of converters and 54% of de novos discontinued minimally invasive radical prostatectomy after their first year. Second year discontinuation of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy was more likely among de novo surgeons (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3–2.7) and less likely among surgeons with higher minimally invasive radical prostatectomy volume in their first year (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.5–0.6). Conclusions: : During the years of the greatest growth in minimally invasive radical prostatectomy, surgeon adoption of this technique varied by surgeon type and volume. Many surgeons discontinued, and possibly abandoned, minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Based on these observations, experienced and higher volume surgeons will be most successful adopting new surgical technology.