Transvesical versus extraperitoneal single-port robotic radical prostatectomy: a matched-pair analysis

Impact of transperitoneal anterior, retzius-sparing, extraperitoneal, transvesical and perineal approaches on urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

BACKGROUND

Urinary incontinence significantly impacts on health-related quality of life of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. In the last decades, several approaches (extraperitoneal, Retzius-sparing (RS), perineal and, transvesical) for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) have proposed with the aim to improve functional outcomes in comparison with transperitoneal, anterior ones.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published in English language, in the last ten years, comparing the different approaches used to perform RARP. We included only studies reporting urinary continence rates at different follow-up time points. From each eligible study, we extracted the number of analyzed patients; the study design; the continence definition; and, when available, immediate, 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-mo urinary continence rates. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan version 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom, UK). The Odds Ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated using the generic inverse variance. A p value of <0.05 was set as significance level when comparing studies.

RESULTS

The meta-analyses of studies comparing anterior, transperitoneal RARP and RS-RARP in terms of immediate (OR = 3.73; 95% CI: 2.17-6.43; p < 0.0001), 1-mo (OR = 4.16; 95% CI: 2.68-6.48; p < 0.00001), 3-mo (OR 4.71; 95% CI: 3.70-6.00; p < 0.0001), 6-mo (OR 4.12; 95% CI: 2.95-5.75; p < 0.00001) and 12-mo (OR = 3.25; 95% CI: 1.76-5.99; p < 0.00001) urinary continence rates showed a statistically significant advantage in favor of RS approach. However, a sub-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials showed overlapping urinary continence rates between the two approaches at 6-mo (OR = 1.99; 95% CI: 0.90-4.42; p = 0.09) and 12-mo (OR = 1.36; 95% CI: 0.43-4.31; p = 0.60) after surgery. The meta-analysis of studies comparing extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches showed that 6-mo urinary continence rates were overlapping between the two approaches (OR = 1.18; 95% CI: 0.85-1.65; p = 0.32). The meta-analysis of studies comparing single-port (SP) and multi-port (MP) RARP showed comparable 6-mo urinary continence rates (OR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.65-1.33; p = 0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of mainly low to moderate quality of evidence, the RS  approach offers significant advantages compared to an anterior, transperitoneal, approach in terms of urinary continence recovery at different follow-up time points in patients who underwent MP-RARP. MP perineal and transvesical approaches need to be further tested and might be of interest in the setting of SP-RARP. Our meta-analysis showed comparable results between SP- and MP-RARP in terms of urinary continence rates.

A comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes in single-port and multi-port retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The retroperitoneal approach for RAPN minimizes interference with intraperitoneal organs but is constrained by a restricted operating space. The single-port (SP) robotic platform excels in navigating tight anatomical environments compared to the multi-port (MP) robotic system. However, there are not many studies that compare the results of surgery using these two platforms when the retroperitoneal approach is used. To address this difference, a detailed review of current studies was done to compare the results of SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN surgeries that were performed using the retroperitoneal method. A comprehensive search was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and SpringerLink to identify any studies that compare urgent-start PD versus urgent-start HD prior to November 25th, 2024. To compare SP-RAPN to MP-RAPN, we looked at things like operation duration, expected blood loss, length of stay, ischemia time, all complications, PSMs, and pathological stage. This meta-analysis incorporated four studies involving a total of 728 patients. Our findings showed no notable distinctions in operative time (WMD - 4.75 min, 95% CI - 12.05 to 2.55, p = 0.20), ischemia time (WMD 3.01 min, 95%CI - 1.32 to 7.34, p = 0.17), blood loss (WMD -3.53 ml, 95% CI - 18.01 to 10.95, p = 0.63), hospital stay duration (WMD - 0.23 days, 95% CI - 0.69 to 0.23, p = 0.32), or overall complication rates (OR 0.34, 95%CI 0.11 to 1.04, p = 0.06) between SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN. Additionally, there was no significant variation in the incidence of positive surgical margins (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.33 to 1.65, p = 0.46) or in the distribution of postoperative pathological stages, including pT1a (OR 1.22, 95%CI 0.81 to 1.82, p = 0.35), pT1b (OR 0.65, 95%CI 0.39 to 1.06, p = 0.08), and stages ≥ pT2 (OR 1.13, 95%CI 0.54 to 2.38, p = 0.75). While single-port robotic systems provide notable operational advantages in confined spaces, our meta-analysis shows no significant differences between SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN in terms of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, ischemia time, complication rates, and positive surgical margins when both techniques are used for retroperitoneal resection of non-complex renal tumors. Future large-scale randomized controlled trials are required for long-term follow-up to further validate these findings.

Recent Advances in Radical Prostatectomy: A Narrative Review of Surgical Innovations and Outcomes

Prostate cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed malignancies worldwide and is a major cause of cancer-associated morbidity in men. Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a cornerstone of intervention for organ-confined diseases and offers a potentially curative outcome. In recent decades, RP has undergone transformative changes, moving from open surgery, with significant morbidity, to minimally invasive and robot-assisted techniques. These advances have improved surgical precision, reduced blood loss, and accelerated functional recovery. Key enhancements, such as the "Veil of Aphrodite", hood-sparing, and Retzius-sparing approaches, aim to preserve neurovascular structures vital for continence and sexual function, addressing the persistent challenge of balancing oncological control with quality-of-life outcomes. Single-port (SP) robotic platforms represent the latest frontier, offering various access routes, including extraperitoneal, transvesical, transperitoneal, and transperineal routes, to further reduce incisional morbidity. Early experiences with SP robot-assisted radical prostatectomy(RARP) suggest favorable continence rates and short hospital stays, although concerns remain regarding the technical complexity and potential margin status of the advanced disease. Comparisons across these techniques revealed broadly similar long-term oncological outcomes, underscoring the importance of patient selection, tumor staging, and surgeon expertise. Ongoing innovations in robotic systems, augmented imaging modalities, and personalized surgical planning are likely to refine prostate cancer care and enhance both survival and post-treatment quality of life.

Single port robot-assisted radical and simple prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Aim of our study was to review the current evidence on single port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP) and SP robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (SP-RASP) procedures.

METHODS

A comprehensive bibliographic search on multiple databases was conducted in July 2023. Studies were included if they assessed patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer or candidate for benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery (P) who underwent SP-RARP or SP-RASP, respectively, (I), compared or not with other surgical techniques (C), evaluating perioperative, oncological, or functional outcomes (O). Prospective and retrospective original articles were included (S). A meta-analysis of comparative studies between SP-RARP and MP-RARP was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies investigating 1400 patients were included in our systematic review, 18 were related to SP-RARP while 3 to SP-RASP. Only 8 comparative studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Mean follow-up was 8.1 (±5.8) months. Similar outcomes were observed for SP-RARP and MP-RARP in terms of operative time, catheterization time, pain score, complications rate, continence and potency rates, positive surgical margin, and biochemical recurrence. Length of hospital stay was shorter in the SP group after sensitivity analysis (WMD -0.58, 95% IC -1.17 to -0.9, p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis by extraperitoneal approach did not show any statistical difference, except for a lower positive margins rate in the SP extraperitoneal technique compared to MP-RARP. Overall, SP-RASP exhibited shorter hospital stay and lower rate of de novo urinary incontinence when compared to other techniques, while no differences were reported in terms of postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score, post void residual and maximum flow.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall comparable oncological, functional, and perioperative outcomes can be achieved with SP platform. Subgroup analysis by different approaches did not reveal significant variations in outcomes. However, the retrospective nature of the studies, the limited follow-up, and the relatively small sample size of selected Centers may impact these results.

Comparison of outcomes between single-port and multiport retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy

INTRODUCTION

Single-port (SP) robotic surgical system performs well in small anatomical spaces, which makes it suitable for retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). However, there is limited evidence comparing the safety and feasibility of SP RPN to multiport (MP) RPN. To address this gap in evidence, we sought to analyze and compare the safety of retroperitoneal RPN between SP and MP approaches.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC) and a multicenter database of patients who underwent retroperitoneal RPN using either SP or MP between 2017 and 2023. Baseline, perioperative, and postoperative data were compared using t-tests, Mann-Whitney U test, χ2 test, and Fisher exact test. Multivariable analyses were conducted using robust and Poisson regressions.

RESULTS

A total of 286 patients (SP RPN, n = 86 [30%]; MP RPN, n = 200 [70%]) underwent retroperitoneal RPN. R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score and tumor location were significantly different between the 2 groups. Notably, the ischemia time was significantly shorter in the MP group (16 vs. SP, 22 minutes, P < 0.001). Adjusting for baseline characteristics, the ischemia time was approximately 7.89 minutes longer for patients in the SP group compared to the MP group, on average (95% CI: 5.87, 9.92; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in operative time, EBL, blood transfusion, conversion rates, LOS, PSM, and overall 30-day postoperative complications between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that retroperitoneal SP and MP RPN have comparable perioperative and postoperative outcomes, except for the longer ischemia time in the SP platform. SP RPN is a safe and viable alternative; however, further research is needed to explore its potential benefits, cost-effectiveness, and long-term oncologic outcomes.

Single-Port Extraperitoneal vs. Multiport Transperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

(1) Background: Since the introduction of the purpose-built Single Port (SP) robotic platform, there has been an ongoing debate regarding its advantages compared to the established multi-port (MP) system. The goal of this present study is to compare the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of SP Extraperitoneal robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus that of MP Transperitoneal RARP approach at a high-volume tertiary center. (2) Methods: Based on a retrospective review of the prospectively maintained IRB-approved database, 925 patients successfully underwent RARP by a single experienced robotic surgeon. A 4:1 propensity-matched analysis based on the baseline prostate cancer International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group, clinical stage, and preoperative Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) was performed, which yielded a cohort of 606 patients-485 in the SP EP and 121 in the MP TP approaches. Of note, the SP EP approach also included the traditional Extraperitoneal (n = 259, 53.4%) and the novel Transvesical (TV) approaches (n = 226, 46.6%). (3) Results: The overall operative time was slightly longer in the SP cohort, with a mean of 198.9 min compared to 181.5 min for the MP group (p < 0.001). There were no intraoperative complications with the MP approach and only one during the SP approach. The SP EP technique demonstrated significant benefits, encompassing reduced intraoperative blood loss (SP 125.1 vs. MP 215.9 mL), shorter length of hospital stay (SP 12.6 vs. MP 31.9 h), reduced opioid use at the time of discharge (SP 14.4% vs. MP 85.1%), and an earlier Foley catheter removal (SP 6 vs. MP 8 days). From an oncological perspective, the rate of positive surgical margins remained comparable across both groups (p = 0.84). Regarding functional outcomes, the mean continence rates and Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) scores were identical between the two groups at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months respectively. (4) Conclusion: SP EP RARP demonstrates similar performance to MP TP RARP in terms of oncologic and functional outcomes. However, SP EP RARP offers several advantages in reducing the overall hospital stay, decreasing postoperative pain and hence the overall opioid use, as well as shortening the time to catheter removal, all of which translates to reduced morbidity and facilitates the transition to outpatient surgery.

Navigating Now and Next: Recent Advances and Future Horizons in Robotic Radical Prostatectomy

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has become the leading approach for radical prostatectomy driven by innovations aimed at improving functional and oncological outcomes. The initial advancement in this field was transperitoneal multiport robotics, which has since undergone numerous technical modifications. These enhancements include the development of extraperitoneal, transperineal, and transvesical approaches to radical prostatectomy, greatly facilitated by the advent of the Single Port (SP) robot. This review offers a comprehensive analysis of these evolving techniques and their impact on RARP. Additionally, we explore the transformative role of artificial intelligence (AI) in digitizing robotic prostatectomy. AI advancements, particularly in automated surgical video analysis using computer vision technology, are unprecedented in their scope. These developments hold the potential to revolutionize surgeon feedback and assessment and transform surgical documentation, and they could lay the groundwork for real-time AI decision support during surgical procedures in the future. Furthermore, we discuss future robotic platforms and their potential to further enhance the field of RARP. Overall, the field of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer has been an incubator of innovation over the last two decades. This review focuses on some recent developments in robotic prostatectomy, provides an overview of the next frontier in AI innovation during prostate cancer surgery, and highlights novel robotic platforms that may play an increasing role in prostate cancer surgery in the future.

Perioperative, function, and positive surgical margin in extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal single port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches are two common modalities in single-port (SP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), but differences in safety and efficacy between the two remain controversial. This study aimed to compare the perioperative, function, and positive surgical margin of extraperitoneal with transperitoneal approaches SP-RARP.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, this study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42023409667). We systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies published up to February 2023. Stata 15.1 software was used to analyze and calculate the risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD).

RESULTS

A total of five studies, including 833 participants, were included in this study. The SP-TPRP group is superior to the SP-EPRP group in intraoperative blood loss (WMD: - 43.92, 95% CI - 69.81, - 18.04; p = 0.001), the incidence of postoperative Clavien-Dindo grade II and above complications (RR: 0.55, 95% CI - 0.31, 0.99; p = 0.04), and postoperative continence recovery (RR: 1.23, 95% CI 1.05, 1.45; p = 0.04). Conversely, the hospitalization stays (WMD: 7.88, 95% confidence interval: 0.65, 15.1; p = 0.03) for the SP-EPRP group was shorter than that of the SP-TPRP group. However, there was no significant difference in operation time, postoperative pain score, total incidence of postoperative complications, and positive surgical margin (PSM) rates between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that both extraperitoneal and extraperitoneal SP-RARP approaches are safe and effective. SP-TPRP is superior to SP-EPRP in postoperative blood loss, the incidence of postoperative Clavien-Dindo grade II and above complications, and postoperative continence recovery, but it is accompanied by longer hospital stays.

The Transition Toward Opioid-sparing Outpatient Radical Prostatectomy: A Single Institution Experience With Three Contemporary Robotic Approaches

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate for differences in the perioperative and early postoperative outcomes between three different contemporary approaches of robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP), namely Single-Port (SP) Transvesical (TV), SP Extraperitoneal (EP), and Multi-Port (MP) Transperitoneal (TP).

METHODS

Retrospective review was performed on 865 consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent SP-TV, SP-EP, and MP-TP RARP. SP-TV and SP-EP RARP were performed using the purpose-built SP robotic platform. All procedures were performed by a single, experienced robotic surgeon. Demographics, perioperative, and early postoperative data were collected from the prospectively-maintained database. Statistical analysis was performed with descriptive statistics as presented.

RESULTS

All SP cases were completed without any need for conversion or additional ports. When compared with MP-TP RARP, both SP-EP and SP-TV RARP were associated with significantly reduced length of stay (median, SP-TV 5.07 vs SP-EP 5.1 vs MP-TP 26.6 hours, P = <.05) and with most patients being discharged within 24 hours (SP-TV 92.3% vs SP-EP 84.6% vs MP-TP 30.4%, P = <.05). Postoperative analgesia requirements were significantly reduced following SP-TV RARP with 95% did not require opioid analgesia after discharge, as opposed to 77.6% and 12.1% of patients in the SP-EP and MP-TP RARP cohorts, respectively (P = <.05). Additionally, SP-TV RARP demonstrated the added benefit of a shorter Foley catheter duration of 4 days with an earlier return of urinary continence.

CONCLUSION

The localization of RARP, as facilitated by the SP robotic platform, provided the opportunity for enhanced postoperative recovery resulting in decreased length of admission and postoperative pain, which allowed for increasing adoption of opioid-sparing outpatient prostatectomy.

Single-port Transvesical Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: The Surgical Learning Curve of the First 100 Cases

OBJECTIVE

To determine the number of cases required to reach plateau performance.

METHODS

We performed a single-surgeon review of the first 100 consecutive procedures. All procedures were performed using the da Vinci single-port robotic system between November 2020 and March 2022. Time was used as the measure of the learning curve (LC). Relevant surgical steps were considered separately for detailed analysis. Data were collected retrospectively and analyzed through the cumulative sum method and moving average graphing. A comparative analysis was done between subgroups of 20 consecutive cases for perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

All cases were completed successfully, without extra ports or conversion. The LC for prostate excision showed initial exponential improvement and reached plateau at case 28. Vesicourethral anastomosis time gradually shortened over time, with a clear inflection point at case 10. Total operative time rapidly improved and plateaued early to 213.0 minutes. Robot-docking and undocking, achieving hemostasis, wound closure, and intraoperative idle times were consistent throughout the series. Estimated blood loss decreased significantly after the first 20 cases (from median of 135.0-88.0 mL, P = .03).

CONCLUSION

In our early experience, the LC for single-port transvesical robot-assisted radical prostatectomy suggests that performance improved after 10-30 cases in the hands of an experienced robotic surgeon.

Comparison between intra- and postoperative outcomes of the da Vinci SP and da Vinci Xi robotic platforms in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy

The new SP robot incorporates a single trocar that houses a flexible camera and three bi-articulated arms, which minimize the number of incisions needed to assess the surgical site, allowing for a less invasive procedure. To compare the postoperative pain scale and outcomes in patients with similar demographic characteristics undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with SP and Xi robots, One-hundred consecutive patients undergoing RARP with the SP robot were matched, using a propensity score (PS), with 100 patients from a cohort of 1757 who were operated on with the da Vinci Xi from June 2019 to January 2021. We described and compared the perioperative pain scores and outcomes of both groups. The SP group had less blood loss (50 cc vs. 62.5 cc, P < 0.001) and longer operative time (114 min. vs. 94 min, P < 0.001). The only period we could show a difference in postoperative pain scores was 6 h after surgery, with a small advantage for the SP (2 vs. 2.5, P < 0.001). Both groups had satisfactory postoperative continence recovery, 91% vs. 90% for the SP and Xi, respectively. The groups had a mean follow-up of 24.5 and 22 months for SP and Xi, respectively. The tumor stage and percentage of positive surgical margins were similar between groups (15% vs. 15%, P = 1). Patients undergoing RARP with the SP had longer operative times with less blood loss than the Xi. However, despite the lower number of abdominal incisions on the SP, the groups had similar intraoperative performance, and we were unable to demonstrate clinically significant differences in postoperative pain scores between the groups 6, 12, and 18 h after surgery.

Single-port robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci XI system: initial experience and learning curve using the cumulative sum method

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the early functional and oncological outcomes of single-port robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy (sp-pRARP) using the da Vinci XI system and analyze its learning curve using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method.

METHODS

The clinical data of 50 patients who underwent sp-pRARP for localized prostate cancer between May 2020 and May 2022 in our center by a single surgeon were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic information, preoperative and postoperative variables, complications, early functional and oncological outcomes of patients were recorded. The CUSUM method was used to illustrate the learning curve based on operation time.

RESULTS

All surgeries were completed without conversion. The median (interquartile range, IQR) operation time was 205.0 (82.5) min, whereas the median (IQR) docking time was 30.0 (15.0) min and the console time was 120.0 (80.5) min. The median (IQR) estimated blood loss (EBL) was 50.0 (137.5) mL. Positive surgical margins were detected in five patients (10.0%). The continence rate was 40.9%, 63.6%, 88.4%, and 97.7% at the 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. According to the CUSUM plot, the inflection points of the learning curve were 20 cases, splitting the case series into "early phase" and "late phase." In "late phase" cases, there was less time spent on each step of the operation and less EBL.

CONCLUSIONS

Sp-pRARP using the da Vinci XI system was verified to be a feasible and reliable surgical approach. According to the CUSUM plot, 20 cases was considered the turning point for surgeons to master the novel technique.