Evidence Hub

Comparison of Robot-Assisted and Open Radical Cystectomy in Recovery of Patient-Reported and Performance-Related Measures of Independence: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Venkatramani V, Reis IM, Gonzalgo ML, Castle EP, Woods ME, Svatek RS, Weizer AZ, Konety BR et al.

JAMA network open, 2022

302 participants

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: No data exist on time to recovery of patient-reported and performance-related measures of functional independence after radical cystectomy (open or robotic).

OBJECTIVE: To determine recovery of functional independence after radical cystectomy and whether robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is associated with any advantage over open procedures.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data for this secondary analysis from the RAZOR (Randomized Open vs Robotic Cystectomy) trial were used. RAZOR was a phase 3 multicenter noninferiority trial across 15 academic medical centers in the US from July 1, 2011, to November 18, 2014, with a median follow-up of 2 years. Participants included the per-protocol population (n = 302). Data were analyzed from February 1, 2017, to May 1, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS: Robot-assisted radical cystectomy or open radical cystectomy (ORC).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patient-reported (activities of daily living [ADL] and independent ADL [iADL]) and performance-related (hand grip strength [HGS] and Timed Up & Go walking test [TUGWT]) measures of independence were assessed. Patterns of postoperative recovery for the entire cohort and comparisons between RARC and ORC were performed. Exploratory analyses to assess measures of independence across diversion type and to determine whether baseline impairments were associated with 90-day complications or 1-year mortality were performed.

FINDINGS: Of the 302 patients included in the analysis (254 men…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 302 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free