Platinum open access journal
pISSN 2466-0493 eISSN 2466-054X
Indexed in MEDLINE, SCIE, Scopus, DOAJ and more
    Korean J Urol. 2006 Oct;47(10):1029-1034. Korean.
    Published online Oct 31, 2006.
    https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2006.47.10.1029
    Copyright © 2006 The Korean Urological Association
    Original Article

    The Usefulness of the Critical Pathway for Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy

    Sangchul Lee, Byong Chang Jeong and Eunsik Lee
      • Department of Urology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
    • Corresponding author (Email: eslee@snu.ac.kr )
    Received May 24, 2006; Accepted July 12, 2006.

    Abstract

    Purpose

    The critical pathway (CP) for radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP), which is the efficient standardized guideline of clinical practice, was established for all the medical staff, nurses, patients and hospital managers for managing patients with RRP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of this CP for RRP.

    Materials and Methods

    Our series consisted of 256 consecutive patients who had undergone RRP at a single institution from March 1, 2002 till May 31, 2005. The CP of RRP was implemented January 1, 2004. The patients were subdivided into two groups: (1) the non critical pathway (NCP) group that was made of 91 patients who were treated other than by the CP (from March, 2002 through December, 2003) and (2) the CP group of 134 patients who were placed on CP (from January, 2004 through May, 2005). The factors compared in this study included the average length of stay (LOS), the average hospital charges, the postoperative complications and the patient satisfaction between the two groups.

    Results

    There were no significant differences in the parameters between the two groups including age, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, the Gleason score and the stage. The average LOS decreased significantly after implementation of CP without increasing the incidence of postoperative complications. The average hospital charges were significantly lower for the CP group than for the group without CP. The patients in the CP group were more satisfied than the other patients.

    Conclusions

    The CP for RRP seems to be effective practical guidelines for managing radical retropubic prostatectomy patients.

    Keywords
    Critical pathways; Prostatectomy; Prostatic neoplasms

    Tables

    Table 1
    Collaborative course of care in the critical pathway for radical retropubic prostatectomy patients

    Table 2
    Characteristics of the patients (NCP group vs. CP group)

    References

      1. Newcomer LM, Stanford JL, Blumenstein BA, Brawer MK. Temporal trends in rates of prostate cancer: declining incidence of advanced stage disease, 1974 to 1994. J Urol 1997;158:1427–1430.
      1. Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 1998. CA Cancer J Clin 1998;48:6–29.
      1. Kim SD, Sung GT, Yoon JH. Epidemiological survey of prostate cancer prevalence in Kangseo-gu, Busan, Korea. Korean J Urol 2003;44:1251–1255.
      1. Zander K. Nursing case management. Resolving the DRG paradox. Nurs Clin North Am 1988;23:503–520.
      1. Leibman BD, Dillioglugil O, Abbas F, Tanli S, Kattan MW, Scardino PT. Impact of a clinical pathway for radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 1998;52:94–99.
      1. Holzbeierlein JM, Smith JA. Radical prostatectomy and collaborative care pathways. Semin Urol Oncol 2000;18:60–65.
      1. Koch MO, Smith JA Jr. Influence of patient age and comorbidity on outcome of a collaborative care pathway after radical prostatectomy and cystoprostatectomy. J Urol 1996;155:1681–1684.
      1. Gheiler EL, Lovisolo JA, Tiguert R, Tefilli MV, Grayson T, Oldford G, et al. Results of a clinical care pathway for radical prostatectomy patients in an open hospital-multiphysician system. Eur Urol 1999;35:210–216.
      1. Salonia A, Crescenti A, Suardi N, Memmo A, Naspro R, Bocciardi AM, et al. General versus spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy: results of a prospective, randomized study. Urology 2004;64:95–100.
      1. Fichtner J, Mengesha D, Hutschenreiter G, Scherer R. Feasibility of radical perineal prostatectomy under spinal anaesthesia. BJU Int 2004;94:802–804.
      1. Kang TJ, Hong BS, Ahn HJ. Early catheter removal after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Korean J Urol 2004;45:324–329.
      1. Koch MO, Nayee AH, Sloan J, Gardner T, Wahle GR, Bihrle R, et al. Early catheter removal after radical retropubic prostatectomy: long-term followup. J Urol 2003;169:2170–2172.
      1. Leibovitch I, Rowland RG, Little JS Jr, Foster RS, Bihrle R, Donohue JP. Cystography after radical retropubic prostatectomy: clinical implications of abnormal findings. Urology 1995;46:78–80.
      1. Ischia JJ, Lindsay S. Is a cystogram necessary after radical prostatectomy? ANZ J Surg 2005;75:825–827.
    Cited by
    Crossref 1
    Google Scholar 
    MeSH Terms
    Critical Pathways*
    Hospital Charges
    Humans
    Incidence
    Length of Stay
    Medical Staff
    Neoplasm Grading
    Patient Satisfaction
    Postoperative Complications
    Prostate-Specific Antigen
    Prostatectomy*
    Prostatic Neoplasms
    Metrics
    Share
    Tables
    slide
    slide

    1 / 2

    PERMALINK