Perioperative and Oncologic Outcomes of Single-Port vs Multiport Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Meta-Analysis

Same-day Outpatient Robotic Surgery in Urology

Outpatient robotic urological surgery is safe and feasible for selected patients and can reduce the hospital length of stay and costs. Key factors include preoperative counseling, optimized perioperative care, and tailored patient selection, with outcomes comparable to those for inpatient procedures.

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.

Single-Port vs Multiport Robotic Surgery in Urologic Oncology: A Narrative Review

Introduction: Robotic surgery has improved the oncologic and functional outcomes of many urologic oncology procedures by optimizing visualization and instrument maneuverability. Since its FDA approval in 2018, the daVinci single-port (SP) platform has become increasingly utilized in urologic oncology, with its theoretical advantages over the standard multiport (MP) platform including improved cosmesis, reduced pain, and shorter hospitalization. Given this platform's relative novelty, comparisons between SP and MP robotic surgeries in urologic oncology tend to be small, non-randomized studies performed at centers of excellence. We review the existing literature comparing oncologic and functional outcomes between SP and MP surgeries to treat prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer. Methods: A literature review was performed in PubMed for studies comparing SP and MP prostatectomies, nephrectomies, and cystectomies from 2018 to 2024. The search was limited to English studies. Studies evaluating prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and cystectomy for nononcologic indications were excluded. Results: No difference in margin status or recurrence was definitively demonstrated between SP and MP radical prostatectomy, partial nephrectomy, or radical cystectomy. No clear difference in operative time, blood loss, or complication rates between SP and MP surgery was found. SP surgery may improve length of stay, pain, and satisfaction with incisions compared with MP surgery, though these differences were not robustly demonstrated across all studies. Key functional outcomes, such as change in kidney function in partial nephrectomy, and erectile/urinary function in radical prostatectomy, were similar between the SP and MP platforms. Conclusion: Based on current evidence from experienced surgeons at centers of excellence, the daVinci SP platform allows urologists to perform common oncologic procedures safely and effectively. Currently, no data definitively establishes improved oncologic or functional outcomes for SP surgery over MP surgery, though improved hospital stay and cosmesis are identified as theoretical benefits of an SP procedure.

Recent Advances in Robotic Surgery for Urologic Tumors

This review discusses recent advances in robotic surgery for urologic tumors, focusing on three key areas: robotic systems, assistive technologies, and artificial intelligence. The Da Vinci SP system has enhanced the minimally invasive nature of robotic surgeries, while the Senhance system offers advantages such as tactile feedback and eye-tracking capabilities. Technologies like 3D reconstruction combined with augmented reality and fluorescence imaging aid surgeons in precisely identifying the anatomical relationships between tumors and surrounding structures, improving surgical efficiency and outcomes. Additionally, the development of artificial intelligence lays the groundwork for automated robotics. As these technologies continue to evolve, we are entering an era of minimally invasive, precise, and intelligent robotic surgery.

Evaluation status of current and emerging minimally invasive robotic surgical platforms

BACKGROUND

The rapid adoption of robotics within minimally invasive surgical specialties has also seen an explosion of new technology including multi- and single port, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), endoluminal and "on-demand" platforms. This review aims to evaluate the validation status of current and emerging MIS robotic platforms, using the IDEAL Framework.

METHODS

A scoping review exploring robotic minimally invasive surgical devices, technology and systems in use or being developed was performed, including general surgery, gynaecology, urology and cardiothoracics. Systems operating purely outside the abdomen or thorax and endoluminal or natural orifice platforms were excluded. PubMed, Google Scholar, journal reports and information from the public domain were collected. Each company was approached via email for a virtual interview to discover more about the systems and to quality check data. The IDEAL Framework is an internationally accepted tool to evaluate novel surgical technology, consisting of four stages: idea, development/exploration, assessment, and surveillance. An IDEAL stage, synonymous with validation status in this review, was assigned by reviewing the published literature.

RESULTS

21 companies with 23 different robotic platforms were identified for data collection, 13 with national and/or international regulatory approval. Of the 17 multiport systems, 1 is fully evaluated at stage 4, 2 are stage 3, 6 stage 2b, 2 at stage 2a, 2 stage 1, and 4 at the pre-IDEAL stage 0. Of the 6 single-port systems none have been fully evaluated with 1 at stage 3, 3 at stage 1 and 2 at stage 0.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of existing robotic platforms are currently at the preclinical to developmental and exploratory stage of evaluation. Using the IDEAL framework will ensure that emerging robotic platforms are fully evaluated with long-term data, to inform the surgical workforce and ensure patient safety.

Perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes of minimally-invasive surgery for highly complex renal tumors (RENAL or PADUA score ≥ 10): an evidence-based analysis

The primary objective of the current study is to undertake a comparative analysis of the effectiveness and safety of minimally-invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN; including laparoscopic and robotic approaches) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN) for the treatment of highly complex renal tumors (defined as PADUA or RENAL score ≥ 10). A comprehensive search was conducted in four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library) to identify relevant studies published in the English language up to April 2023. The current study employed Review Manager 5.4 and encompassed controlled trials of both MIPN and OPN for the treatment of highly complex renal tumors. This study comprised a total of eight comparative trials involving 1161 patients. MIPN demonstrated a significant reduction in length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] - 2.08 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 2.48, - 1.68; p < 0.00001), blood loss (WMD - 39.86 mL, 95% CI - 75.32, - 4.39; p = 0.03), transfusion rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% CI 0.13, 0.71; p = 0.006), and overall complications (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31, 0.70; p = 0.0003). However, there were no significant differences between MIPN and OPN in terms of operative time, warm ischemia time, conversion to radical nephrectomy rates, renal functional and oncologic outcomes. This study reveals that MIPN presents several benefits in comparison to OPN, including decreased length of hospital stay, blood loss, transfusion rates, and complications, while still offering renal functional and oncological outcomes that are comparable to those of OPN in patients with highly complex renal tumors.

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of minimally-invasive surgery for renal cell carcinoma with venous tumor thrombus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative trials

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to conduct a pooled analysis to compare the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of minimally-invasive radical nephrectomy with tumor thrombus (MI-RNTT) with open radical nephrectomy with tumor thrombus (O-RNTT).

METHODS

This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published in English up to December 2022. The primary outcomes were perioperative results, complications, and oncologic outcomes. Review Manager 5.4 was used for this analysis.

RESULTS

In total, eight retrospective trials with a total of 563 patients were included. Compared to O-RNTT, MI-RNTT had shorter hospitalization time [weighted mean difference (WMD) -3.58 days, 95% CI: -4.56 to -2.59; P <0.00001), lower volumes of blood loss (WMD -663.32 ml, 95% CI: -822.22 to -504.42; P <0.00001), fewer transfusion rates (OR 0.18, 95% CI: 0.09-0.35; P <0.00001), fewer overall complications (OR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.22-0.49; P <0.00001), and fewer major complications s (OR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.24-1.00; P =0.05). However, operative time, intraoperative complications, mortality rate (intraoperative, within 30 days, and total mortality), overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and cancer-specific survival did not significantly differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MI-RNTT possesses more benefits than O-RNTT in terms of length of hospital stay, blood loss, and complications and provides comparable mortality rates and oncologic outcomes. However, more comprehensive and rigorous research is warranted to further validate the outcomes, which should include a larger sample size and comprehensive data from high-volume medical centers.

Cumulative sum analysis of the learning curve of laparoendoscopic single-site robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Radical prostatectomy has become the gold standard for treating localized prostate cancer. Improvement in the single-site technique and surgeon's skill reduces not only the hospital duration but also the number of wounds. Realizing the learning curve for a new procedure can prevent unnecessary mistakes.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the learning curve of extraperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (LESS-RaRP).

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 160 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer during June 2016 to December 2020 who underwent extraperitoneal LESS-RaRP. Calculated cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM) was used to evaluate the learning curves for the extraperitoneal setting time, robotic console time, total operation time, and blood loss. The operative and functional outcomes were also assessed.

RESULTS

The learning curve of the total operation time was observed in 79 cases. For the extraperitoneal setting and robotic console times, the learning curve was observed in 87 and 76 cases, respectively. The learning curve for blood loss was observed in 36 cases. No in-hospital mortality or respiratory failure was observed.

CONCLUSION

Extraperitoneal LESS-RaRP using the da Vinci Si system is safe and feasible. Approximately 80 patients are required to achieve a stable and consistent operative time. A learning curve for blood loss was observed after 36 cases.

Perioperative results of single-port vs multi-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy via peritoneal approach: a meta-analysis

To compare the perioperative outcomes of single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP) and multiport robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (MP-RARP) via transperitoneal approach, we conducted a comprehensive database search of eligible studies up to October 2022 and compared their results. This study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was performed to control for heterogeneity and risk of bias. A total of six articles were included, involving 926 patients, among which 256 underwent SP-RARP and 670 underwent MP-RARP. Comparing the two, SP-RARP was associated with shorter hospitalization time (- 0.5 days; 95% CI - 1.02, - 0.06, p < 0.05) and less intraoperative blood loss (- 29.88 ml; 95% CI - 45.66, - 14.10, p < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in any complications, operative time, positive surgical margins, or short-term follow-up outcomes (continence and potency at 3 months). These findings provide reference data for the selection of surgical methods in performing transperitoneal RP and support further research on the broad applicability of the SP platform.

Experience with an innovative surgical approach: 321 cases modified extraperitoneal single-incision robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy without dedicated PORT based on Da Vinci SI system

To summarize surgical experiences with a new modified technique involving extraperitoneal single-incision robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy based on Da Vinci SI system by reviewing case data, including follow ups, and to evaluate the safety and clinical efficacy of the surgical procedure. The case data from December 2020 to September 2022 of 321 patients undergoing modified single incision (without dedicated PORT) robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy via an extraperitoneal approach were reviewed. All procedures were performed by the same surgeon at our center. Perioperative data and postoperative urinary control, tumor control, and erectile function recovery were assessed. The immediate, 3-months, 6-months, 12-months, 18-months and 24-months complete urinary control rates were 34.3%, 56.6%, 79.7%, 85.7%, 89.6% and 90.7%, respectively; the 3-months, 6-months, 12-months, 18-months and 24-months biochemical recurrence rates were 3.4%, 5.2%, 9.1%, 21.7% and 30.2%, respectively; and for those with normal preoperative erectile function, the 3-months, 6-months, 12-months, 18-months and 24-months postoperative erectile function recovery rates were 52.2%, 60.0%, 70.7%, 72.2% and 73.9%, respectively. The new modified technique involving extraperitoneal single-incision robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is safe and feasible. This technique has satisfactory surgical results, and this new method results in satisfactory urinary control, tumor control and recovery of erectile function. In addition, this new method is not limited to specific dedicated access devices, which facilitates its application.

Single-Port Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Where Do We Stand?

In 2018, the da Vinci Single Port (SP) robotic system was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for urologic procedures. Available studies for the application of SP to prostate cancer surgery are limited. The aim of our study is to summarize the current evidence on the techniques and outcomes of SP robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARLP) procedures. A narrative review of the literature was performed in January 2023. Preliminary results suggest that SP-RALP is safe and feasible, and it can offer comparable outcomes to the standard multiport RALP. Extraperitoneal and transvesical SP-RALP appear to be the two most promising approaches, as they offer decreased invasiveness, potentially shorter length of stay, and better pain control. Long-term, high-quality data are missing and further validation with prospective studies across different sites is required.

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.

Comparison of Three Approaches to Single-Port Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Our Institution's Initial Experience

Background: We aimed to compare three robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) approaches-Retzius sparing (RS), extraperitoneal (EP), and transperitoneal (TP)-performed at our institution using the da Vinci® single-port (SP) platform (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 101 patients who underwent SP-RARP at our institution and stratified them into three cohorts based on the RARP approach: RS (n = 32), EP (n = 30), and TP (n = 39). Data regarding preoperative patient characteristics, perioperative characteristics, oncologic outcomes, and early functional outcomes were collected. The Fisher's exact test and chi-square tests were utilized for categorical variables, and the Kruskal-Wallis test was utilized for numerical variables. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were utilized for pairwise comparisons. A two-tailed p < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: All three cohorts were largely similar in terms of preoperative patient characteristics. Operative time was significantly different between cohorts (p < 0.001), with the RS approach having a faster mean operating time than the TP approach (208 ± 40 minutes vs 248 ± 36 minutes, p < 0.001). Clinically significant margin rates did not differ significantly between cohorts (p = 0.861). Postoperative continence differed significantly between cohorts (p < 0.001); higher continence rates were observed in RS vs EP-94% (30/32) vs 52% (15/29), respectively, p < 0.001. Return of erectile function also differed significantly between cohorts (p = <0.001); higher erectile function recovery rates were observed in RS vs EP-88% (28/32) vs 41% (11/27), respectively, p < 0.001-and in RS vs TP-88% (28/32) vs 60% (22/37), respectively, p = 0.014. Median (IQR) follow-up time was 150 (88-377) days. Conclusions: RS SP-RARP is associated with improved early functional outcomes when compared with both EP and TP approaches. These benefits are achieved while maintaining equivalent oncologic outcomes. Further research is needed to optimize the patient selection paradigm for the SP-RARP approach.