A Comparative Analysis of Surgical Scar Cosmesis Based on Operative Approach for Radical Prostatectomy

Implementation of single-port robotic urologic surgery: experience at a large academic center

The Single-Port (SP) robotic system is increasingly being implemented in the United States, allowing for several minimally invasive urologic procedures to be performed. The present study aims to describe our single-center experience since the adoption of the SP platform. We retrospectively collected and analyzed consecutive SP cases performed at a major teaching hospital in the Midwest (Rush University Medical Center) from December 2020 to December 2023. Demographic variables were collected. Surgical and pathological outcomes were analyzed in the overall cohort and for each type of procedure. The study timeframe was divided into two periods to assess the evolution of SP technical features over time. In total, 160 procedures were performed, with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) being the most common (49.4%). Overall, 54.4% of the procedures were extraperitoneal, with a significantly higher adoption of this approach in the second half of the study period (30% vs 74.3%, p < 0.001). A "plus one" assistant port was adopted in 38.1% of cases, with a shift towards a "pure" single-port surgery in the most recent procedures (21.1% vs 76.7%, p < 0.001). The median LOS was 33.5 h (30-48), with a rate of any grade and CD ≥ 3 postoperative complications of 9.4% and 2.5%, respectively, and a 30-day readmission rate of 1.9%. SP robotic surgery can be safely and effectively implemented for various urologic procedures. With increasing experience, the SP platform allows shifting away from transperitoneal procedures, potentially minimizing postoperative pain, and shortening hospital stay and postoperative recovery.

Early outcomes of single-site versus multi-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Single-site robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (ssRARP) has been promoted in many institutions due to its minimally invasive approach. This review aimed to investigate early outcomes of ssRARP in comparison with multi-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (mpRARP).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed for articles related to ssRARP case series and studies that compared ssRARP with mpRARP. The primary outcomes were functional and oncological outcomes, incision length, length of hospital stay and cost.

RESULTS

24 ssRARP case series involving 1385 cases, and 11 comparative studies involving 573 ssRARP cases and 980 mpRARP cases were included. Rate of immediate, 3-month, 6-month and 12-month recovery of continence in the ssRARP case series were 41 % [95 % CI: 0.38-0.45], 70 % [95 % CI: 0.67-0.73], 90 % [95 % CI: 0.87-0.93] and 93 % [95 % CI: 0.90-0.96]. 3-month potency recovery and positive surgical margin rate were 53 % [95 % CI: 0.46-0.60] and 21 % [95 % CI: 0.19-0.24]. No significant differences were detected between ssRARP and mpRARP in terms of 3-month (OR: 1.12; 95 % CI: 0.80-1.57) or 6-month (OR: 0.72; 95 % CI: 0.36-1.46) continence recovery rate, 3-month potency recovery rate (OR: 0.92; 95 % CI: 0.50-1.70), positive surgical margin rate (OR: 0.83; 95 % CI: 0.62-1.11), biochemical recurrence rate or total cost. Furthermore, ssRARP was associated with a significantly shorter length of incision and hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

ssRARP has significant advantages in cosmetic effect, length of incision and rapid recovery. Consequently, ssRARP is expected to become the preferred form although more evidence is needed to determine its long-term effect.

A prospective study on single-port versus multiport patient-reported surgical outcomes

Introduction

We sought to determine potential patient reported advantages of the da Vinci single-port (SP) robotic system for urological procedures compared with the previous model, the da Vinci multiport (MP) system. The SP model utilizes a single 30 to 40 mm incision rather than multiple 5 to 22 mm incisions. This project aims to prospectively investigate the impact of the novel SP system on patient reported cosmetic and psychometric surgical outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a prospective study of patients who underwent uro-oncologic surgery by three urologists at the University of Illinois Chicago from April to November 2021. Study participants completed a Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire 20 and 90 days post-procedure. The Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire is a reliable measure of surgical scars that includes five subscales: Appearance, Symptoms, Consciousness, Satisfaction with Appearance, and Satisfaction with Symptoms. Higher scores represented worse reported outcomes.

Results

On Postoperative Day 20, there were 77 responses (53 SP and 24 MP). Patients receiving SP procedures reported more favourable outcomes in terms of appearance, symptoms, consciousness, and pain medication. On Day 90, there were 37 responses (24 SP and 13 MP). Patients receiving SP procedures reported more favourable outcomes in terms of appearance. No significant differences were seen on Day 90 in terms of pain, medication, symptoms, consciousness, or satisfaction.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the superiority of the SP in patient reported cosmetic and pain outcomes on short- and long-term follow-up after uro-oncological surgical procedures. Symptomatic and cosmetic advantages are present at the 20 day follow-up, with better scar appearance being significant 90 days after surgery.

Single-port and multiport robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A meta-analysis

Objective

To compare the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes between single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP) and multiport robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (MP-RARP) via a meta-analysis.

Methods

For relevant articles, three electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched from their inception until January 15, 2022. A meta-analysis has been reported in line with PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR Guidelines. The risk ratio and weighted mean difference (MD) were applied for the comparison of dichotomous and continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Of the 368 retrieved abstracts, 41 underwent full-text review, and seven studies were included in the final analysis, comprising a total cohort of 1,934 cases of RARP (355 SP-RARP cases and 1,579 MP-RARP cases). Compared to MP-RARP, the SP-RARP group had less postoperative pain score (MD = -0.7, 95% CI -1 to -0.4, P<0.001), morphine milligram equivalents usage (MD = -3.8, 95% CI -7.5 to -0.1, P=0.04), hospital stay (MD = -1, 95% CI -1.8 to -0.1, P=0.019), and urinary catheterization time (MD = -1.1, 95% CI -1.9 to -0.3, P=0.008). However, the SP-RARP group had a longer console time than the MP-RARP group (MD = 5.3, 95% CI 2.6 to 7.9, P<0.001).

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated that early results were mostly equivalent with the single-port approach. This technology may help to reduce the hospital stay and postoperative pain for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy compared to MP-RARP, without compromising the functional and early oncological outcomes.

Transperitoneal Versus Retroperitoneal Single-port Robotic-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: An Analysis from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium

BACKGROUND

In the surgical management of kidney tumors, such as in multiport technology, single-port (SP) robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) can be performed using the transperitoneal (TP) or retroperitoneal (RP) approach. However, there is a dearth of literature on the efficacy and safety of either approach for SP RAPN.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the peri- and postoperative outcomes of the TP and RP approaches for SP RAPN.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC) database of five institutions. All patients underwent SP RAPN for a renal mass between 2019 and 2022.

INTERVENTION

TP versus RP SP RAPN.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Baseline characteristics, and peri- and postoperative outcomes were compared between both the approaches using χ2 test, Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Student t test.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 219 patients (121 [55.25%] TP, 98 [44.75%] RP) were included in the study. Of them, 115 (51.51%) were male, and the mean age was 60 ± 11 yr. RP had a significantly higher proportion of posterior tumors (54 [55.10%] RP vs 28 [23.14%] TP, p < 0.001), while other baseline characteristics were comparable between both the approaches. There was no statistically significant difference in ischemia time (18 ± 9 vs 18 ± 11 min, p = 0.898), operative time (147 ± 67 vs 146 ± 70 min, p = 0.925), estimated blood loss (p = 0.167), length of stay (1.06 ± 2.25 vs 1.33 ± 1.05 d, p = 0.270), overall complications (5 [5.10%] vs 7 [5.79%]), and major complication rate (2 [2.04%] vs 2 [1.65%], p = 1.000). No difference was observed in positive surgical margin rate (p = 0.472) or delta eGFR at median 6-mo follow-up (p = 0.273). Limitations include retrospective design and no long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

With proper patient selection based on patient and tumor characteristics, surgeons can opt for either the TP or the RP approach for SP RAPN, and maintain satisfactory outcomes.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The use of a single port (SP) is a novel technology for performing robotic surgery. Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is a surgery to remove a portion of the kidney due to kidney cancer. Depending on patient characteristics and surgeons' preference, SP can be performed via two approaches for RAPN: through the abdomen or through the space behind the abdominal cavity. We compared outcomes between these two approaches for patients receiving SP RAPN, finding that they were comparable. We conclude that with proper patient selection based on patient and tumor characteristics, surgeons can opt for either the TP or the RP approach for SP RAPN, and maintain satisfactory outcomes.

How far has robot-assisted partial nephrectomy reached?

Nephron-sparing surgery is the standard treatment for small renal mass (SRM). Nephron-sparing surgery has evolved from an open to a minimally invasive technique. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is the latest technique in this field and is reported to be safe and feasible, showing oncologically and functionally superior or compatible results compared with open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for SRM. This is not limited to only SRM but also applies to large and complex renal masses and other challenging situations. RAPN showed good oncological and functional outcomes for ≥clinical T2 renal tumors, complex renal masses (PADUA score ≥10, RENAL score ≥10), hilar renal tumors, and multiple renal tumors. In addition, the outcomes of RAPN in these challenging cases were not inferior to those in conventional cases. RAPN could also be applied to a number of challenging cases in which the open technique was considered first. RAPN showed good results in patients with a solitary kidney, horseshoe kidney, and in repeat surgeries. Furthermore, RAPN could be safely performed on obese, elderly, and pediatric patients. Finally, this review evaluates efficiency and utility of RAPN based on the results of challenging cases of renal masses and to project the future of RAPN.

Single-port versus multiport partial nephrectomy: a propensity-score-matched comparison of perioperative and short-term outcomes

The objective of this study was to compare the perioperative and short-term functional and oncological outcomes of single-port and multiport robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using propensity-score analysis. We evaluated all patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy at our institution between January 2019 and October 2020. Patient demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Propensity-score matching was performed on age, sex, body mass index, prior abdominal surgery, and nephrometry score using the optimal matching method. A post hoc sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the robustness of the results. In total, 48 and 238 patients underwent single-port and multiport robotic partial nephrectomy, respectively. Following propensity-score matching, 48 multiport cases were matched 1:1 to single-port cases. The single-port cohort had lower median opioid use at postoperative day 1 (4.6 vs 9.8 MME, p = 0.0209) and cumulative hospital stay (5.1 vs 9.3 MME, p = 0.0357). Single port also had a shorter median length of stay (1.4 vs 1.6 days, p = 0.0045), although the post hoc sensitivity analysis showed no difference between the groups [- 0.13 (95% CI; - 0.580, 0.315, p = 0.5607). There were no significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss, ischemia time, transfusions received, or positive margin rates. In conclusion, based on our early experience, single-port robotic partial nephrectomy is a safe and acceptable alternative to multiport robotic partial nephrectomy, providing comparable perioperative and postoperative outcomes while reducing inpatient opioid use.

Preliminary comparison of the modified extraperitoneal free-PORT single incision technique and transabdominal multi-incision robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

To compare the clinical efficacy of an innovative modified single-incision technique without special extraperitoneal PORT with that of transperitoneal multi-incision robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and to explore the feasibility and safety of the former. A retrospective analysis was performed on 259 patients who received robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the Robot Minimally Invasive Center of Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital between September 2018 and August 2021. Among them were 147 cases involving extraperitoneal single incision with no special PORT (Group A) and 112 cases involving multiple incisions by the transperitoneal method (Group B). Differences in age, PSA level, Gleason score, prostate volume, body mass index, clinical stage, lower abdominal operation history, and lymph node dissection ratio between the two groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). All operations were performed by the same operator. In this study, all 259 operations were completed successfully, and there was no conversion. There was no significant difference in transperitoneal blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, positive rate of incision margin, indwelling time of urinary catheter, satisfaction rate of immediate urine control, satisfaction rate of urine control 3 months after operation, positive rate of postoperative lymph node pathology or postoperative pathological stage between the two groups (P > 0.05). There were significant differences in operation time, postoperative exhaust time and incision length (P < 0.05). The modified extraperitoneal nonspecial PORT single-incision technique is safe and feasible for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and its curative effect is similar to that of transperitoneal multi-incision RARP. It has the advantages of a short operation time, less impact on the gastrointestinal tract and a more beautiful incision. The long-term effect of treatment needs to be further confirmed by prospective studies.

Single-port Extraperitoneal and Transperitoneal Radical Prostatectomy: A Multi-Institutional Propensity-Score Matched Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the perioperative and early postoperative outcomes between single-port (SP) extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EPRP) and SP transperitoneal radical prostatectomy (TPRP), in a multi-institutional setting.

METHODS

We identified all patients who underwent SP robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at 6 different institutes. Data of 650 patients were collected and divided into 2 groups based on the surgical approach: SP EPRP or SP TPRP. A Propensity-score matched-pair analysis for body mass index (BMI), prostate size, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk was performed with a 1:1 ratio. Analysis of perioperative and postoperative outcomes was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test and chi-square and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

After matching, 238 patients were included in each arm. The median follow-up period was 7 and 6 months for EPRP and TPRP groups, respectively. The total operative time was longer in the EPRP group (206 vs 155 minutes, P < .001). The EPRP group had a shorter length of hospitalization and same-day discharge rate compared to the TPRP approach (P < .001). There was no difference in the overall intraoperative or postoperative complications rate between the 2 groups, nor positive surgical margin rates.

CONCLUSION

The SP extraperitoneal approach is associated with a shorter hospital stay and higher rate of same-day discharge, with no difference in the surgical margin, or complication rates.

Recent Advances in the Management of Localized and Locally Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Narrative Review

Purpose

To review the current status of surgical and procedural treatments for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), focusing on oncological and functional outcomes, and the use of techniques for advanced disease over the last 10 years.

Findings

Partial nephrectomy (PN) has become the reference standard for most T1 and T2 masses. In cT2 RCC, PN exhibits oncological equivalence and improved functional outcomes compared to radical nephrectomy (RN). Additionally, emerging data suggest that PN may be used to treat cT3a RCC. The robot-assisted platform is increasingly used to treat locally advanced RCC. Studies suggest safety and feasibility of robotic RN and robotic inferior vena cava tumor thrombectomy. Additionally, single-port robot-assisted laparoscopic approaches are comparable to multiport approaches in select patients. Long-term data show that cryoablation, radiofrequency ablation, and microwave ablation are equipotent in management of small renal masses. Emerging data suggest that microwave may effectively treat cT1b masses.

Extraperitoneal tissue retraction technique: An effective assistant of extraperitoneal pure single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci Si surgical system

Objective

The limitations of tissue retraction and the amount of surgical working space have a great impact on extraperitoneal single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (sp-RARP) with the multiport robotic surgical system. We used an extraperitoneal tissue retraction technique to achieve tissue exposure and working space expansion. This study evaluated the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of the extraperitoneal tissue retraction technique in extraperitoneal pure sp-RARP with the da Vinci Si surgical system.

Methods

Data from 42 patients were analyzed retrospectively from December 2018 to February 2020. The extraperitoneal tissue retraction technique was not used in 20 patients (group I) and was used in 22 patients (group II). Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected. The oncological and functional data during late follow-up were recorded.

Results

All patients successfully underwent extraperitoneal pure sp-RARP. No patients required conversion to a multiport surgery or placement of additional assistant ports. The two groups were similar regarding baseline features. The median operation time in group I was significantly longer than that in group II (P &lt; 0.001). The estimated blood loss volume in group I was significantly higher than that in group II (P &lt; 0.001). There were no serious complications in either group. There were four cases of peritoneal tears in group I and none in group II (P = 0.043). The surgical margin and lymph nodes were negative in both groups. The oncological and functional outcomes were similar between the two groups 6 months after the procedure.

Conclusions

The extraperitoneal tissue retraction technique is safe and feasible. The technique promotes tissue exposure and expands the surgical working space, which is important for achieving extraperitoneal pure sp-RARP with the da Vinci Si surgical system, especially for beginners. The short-term oncological and functional outcomes were within acceptable ranges. The long-term effects of this technique need further evaluation.

Evaluating Symptomatic and Psychosocial Well-being After Keloid Treatment With SCAR-Q

BACKGROUND

Many patients with keloids experience symptoms, such as pain and pruritus, and may present with significant psychosocial burdens. However, no single therapeutic regimen has been firmly established for treatment of keloids.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess patients' perspectives on their keloids after treatment by comparing preoperative and postoperative surveys.

METHODS

All patients seen at the keloid clinic, both preoperatively and postoperatively, were contacted by telephone call. Information about demographics, keloid characteristics, and levels of pain and pruritus were recorded. Participants also completed all 3 parts (appearance, symptoms, and psychosocial impact) of the SCAR-Q, a validated patient-reported outcome measure questionnaire. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS version 23 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

RESULTS

Of the 60 patients who participated in the study, 35 preoperative and 34 postoperative surveys were completed. Patients experienced significant reductions in mean [standard deviation] pain levels (from 5.6 [4.0] to 0.1 [0.4], P < 0.001) and pruritus (from 6.5 [3.0] to 0.8 [1.5], P < 0.001) postintervention. Significant improvements in all 3 parts of the SCAR-Q were noted. Appearance improved from 26.5 [22.3] to 73.4 [23.0] (P < 0.001); symptoms from 44.0 [15.7] to 81.4 [16.7] (P < 0.001); and psychosocial impact from 27.7 [30.7] to 82.6 [26.3] (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with keloids experience significant improvement in their symptomatic and psychosocial burden after treatment. Although management modalities are not well established, it is essential that plastic surgeons do not overlook the therapeutic benefits for their patients' well-being.

Propensity-Score Matched Analysis Between Extraperitoneal Single Port and Intraperitoneal Multiport Radical Prostatectomy: A Single-Institutional Experience

OBJECTIVES

To compare the perioperative results and intermediate-term functional outcomes of single port and multiport robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy by using a propensity-score analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated all patients who underwent robotic prostatectomy by three urologic surgeons at our institution between January 2019 and October 2020. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected and assessed. Patients were matched based on body mass index, Gleason group, and prostate volume using the optimal matching method.

RESULTS

Overall, 98 and 165 patients underwent single port and multiport robotic prostatectomy, respectively. Following propensity-score matching, 98 multiport cases were matched 1:1 to single port cases. The median operative time was lower for multiport (111.5 vs 147.0 minutes, p=0.0000). Single port had a lower median estimated blood loss (50.0 vs 75.0 mL, p=0.0006), pain score on postoperative day 0 (1.0 vs 2.0, p=0.0004), opioid use at postoperative day 1 (0.0 [IQR 0.0-5.0] vs 0.0 MME [IQR 0.0-7.5], p=0.0058), cumulative opioid use (2.0 vs 7.0 MME, p=0.0008), and lymph node yield (4.0 vs 7.0 nodes, p=0.0051). Single port had a greater percentage of men regain full erectile function by 6 months (23.8% vs 4.8%, p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The single port robotic system is a safe option for localized prostate cancer treatment, offering superior pain control and comparable perioperative results and intermediate-term functional outcomes compared to the multiport robotic approach.

Efficacy and safety of single port robotic radical prostatectomy and multiport robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of single port (SP) robot radical prostatectomy and multiport (MP) robot radical prostatectomy.

Methods

Using the China National Knowledge database, EMBASE, Cochrane library, PubMed, and other databases to obtain relevant research, SP robot radical prostatectomy and MP robot radical prostatectomy were comprehensively evaluated. The software used to evaluate the impact of the results in the selected articles was Review Manager 5.2. Deviation analysis, forest plot analysis, and sensitivity analysis were carried out for the collected data.

Results

A total of 7 related studies that met the criteria were finally included. The data showed that the operation time of MP in the control group was significantly longer than that in the SP group [mean difference (MD) =−13.29; 95% confidence interval (CI): (−17.35, −9.23); P<0.00001; I²=50%]. The duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay for SP surgery was shorter than that for MP surgery [MD =−18.30; 95% CI: (−29.17, −7.42); P=0.0010; I²=94%]. The blood loss of SP surgery was less than that of MP surgery [MD =−15.54; 95% CI: (−28.37, −2.71); the total effective rate was 0.02; I²=0%]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between SP and MP surgery [risk ratio (RR) =0.95; 95% CI: (0.55, 1.63); P=0.85; I²=0%]. At the same time, the sensitivity analysis and funnel plot showed that this study was robust and publication bias was limited.

Discussion

Our results show that SP robotic radical prostatectomy is superior to MP robotic radical prostatectomy in terms of efficacy and safety. SP robot radical prostatectomy is worthy of wide promotion.

Single-Port versus Multi-Port Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score Matching Comparative Study

PURPOSE

To compare the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent single-port (SP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and those who underwent multi-port (MP)-RARP.

METHODS

Data on 40 consecutive patients who underwent SP-RARP between June 2020 and February 2021 and 129 who underwent MP-RARP between June 2019 and February 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Using logistic regression, 31 patients who underwent SP-RARP were matched to 31 patients who underwent MP-RARP (1:1) based on propensity scores. The available perioperative parameters and outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Compared to MP-RARP, SP-RARP showed no significant differences in perioperative parameters, including the console times (111.0±15.7 vs. 102.6±18.8 minutes, p=0.569), operation time (151.3±15.1 vs. 158.7±20.3 minutes, p=0.863), estimated blood loss (121.1±64.7 vs. 140.5±90.5 mL, p=0.638), positive surgical margins (19.4% in both groups), and 3-month continence (77.4% vs. 83.9%, p=0.563) and potency (45.2% vs. 48.4%, p=0.891) rates. Patients who underwent SP-RARP had lower proportions of complete nerve sparing than those who underwent MP-RARP (SP-RARP vs. MP-RARP in subjective scores: 4.0±0.8 vs. 4.4±0.9, p=0.046; SP-RARP vs. MP-RARP in pathologic score of 5, 35.5% vs. 64.5%, p=0.049; score of 4, 41.9% vs. 19.4%, p=0.038; score of 3, 19.4% vs. 9.7%, p=0.398; score of 2, 3.2% vs. 0.0%, p=0.365; and score of 1, 3.2% vs. 3.2%, p=0.932, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

SP-RARP showed lower nerve sparing scores than MP-RARP, the present study suggests that SP-RARP is safe and feasible with comparable short-term functional outcomes as those of MP-RARP.

Single Port vs Multiport Robotic Pyeloplasty: Propensity-Score Matched Analysis of Perioperative and Follow-Up Outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of single port (SP) robotic pyeloplasty and multiport (MP) robotic pyeloplasty using a propensity-score matched analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a chart review of all patients who underwent SP robotic pyeloplasty from January 2019 to October 2020 and MP robotic pyeloplasty from January 2016 to October 2020. Patient demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Propensity-score matching was performed on sex, body mass index, and history of previous pyeloplasty to adjust for potential baseline confounders. A post hoc sensitivity analysis for operative time was performed to examine the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

In total, 24 and 41 patients underwent sSP and MP robotic pyeloplasty, respectively. Following propensity-score matching, 21 MP cases were matched 1:1 to SP cases. The SP group was shown to have longer median operative times (128.0 vs 88.0 minutes, P = .0411) and shorter follow up time (9.3 vs 18.7 months, P = .0066). In a sensitivity analysis, SP robotic pyeloplasty was marginally associated with increased operative time (95% CI -0.25, 29.72, P = .0540).

CONCLUSIONS

SP robotic pyeloplasty is a safe and acceptable alternative to MP robotic pyeloplasty, achieving comparable perioperative and postoperative outcomes.