A Propensity-Matched Comparison of the Perioperative Outcomes Between Single-Port and Multi-Port Robotic Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Report from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC)

Single Port Modified Partial Nephrectomy: Novel Simultaneous Access to Peritoneal and Retroperitoneal Partial Nephrectomy, Initial Clinical Experience

Introduction and Objective: Since its Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2018, Intuitive Surgical DaVinci single port (SP) robotic platform has been an effectively used technology for multiple urologic procedures. The purpose of this study is to share our early intraoperative and perioperative outcomes and potential benefits for performing a lower anterior access (LAA) incision for SP robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (SP-RAPN). The LAA incision enables performing a trans- or retroperitoneal (RP) approach through the same incision and eases the transition to a RP approach. Methods: This study is a prospective review of 78 SP-RAPN cases between March 2021 and January 2023 by an experienced robotic surgeon. A single 2-3 cm oblique incision parallel to the external oblique muscle, one-third of the distance between the iliac crest and umbilicus, was used to insert the multichannel port to perform the RAPN. We extracted intra- and perioperative data of these patients to share the outcomes of this approach. Results: SP-RAPN was effectively completed in 78 patients (38 females and 40 males) without conversion to open or laparoscopic techniques. The mean age was 61.2 ± 12.1 years. The mean tumor size was 3.0 ± 1.2 cm, 43 were right-sided masses, and 35 were left sided. The R.E.N.A.L Nephrometry score ranged from (4-11) with an average of 7.0 ± 1.9. Average operating room time was 90.5 ± 24.6 minutes, estimated blood loss was 88.3 ± 134 mL, and length of stay of 1.07 ± 0.7 days. Of the 78 cases, 40 required clamping of the renal artery with average warm ischemia time of 19.4 ± 6.7 minutes in patients who underwent clamping. No complications in all of 78 patients. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility and reproducibility of SP-RAPN using a LAA incision. This incision provides a standardized approach for surgeons to transition to the RP approach using the SP platform.

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.

Single-Port vs Multiport Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Several centers have reported their experience with single-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (SP-RAPN); however, it is uncertain if utilization of this platform represents an improvement in outcomes compared to multiport robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (MP-RAPN). To evaluate this, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes between SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN. Methods: For relevant articles, three electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched from their inception until January 1, 2023. A meta-analysis has been reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 and assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) guidelines. The odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (MD) were applied for the comparison of dichotomous and continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Of the 374 retrieved abstracts, 29 underwent full-text review, and 8 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising a total cohort of 1007 cases of RAPN (453 SP-RAPN cases and 554 MP-RAPN cases). Compared to MP-RAPN, the SP-RAPN group had a significantly longer ischemia time (MD = 4.6 minutes, 95% CI 2.8 to 6.3, p < 0.001), less estimated blood loss (MD = -12.4 mL, 95% CI -24.6 to -0.3, p = 0.045), higher blood transfusion rate (OR = 2.97, 95% CI 1.33 to 6.65, p = 0.008), and higher postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 6 months (MD = 4.9 mL/min, 95% CI 0.2 to 9.7, p = 0.04). There was no significant difference in other outcomes between the two approaches, including the intraoperative complication, overall postoperative complication, minor postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo I - II), major postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo III-V), conversion to radical nephrectomy, pain score on day #1, pain score on discharge, morphine milligram equivalent usage, hospital stay, positive surgical margins, and postoperative eGFR. Conclusions: SP-RAPN represents an emerging technique using a novel platform. Initial studies have demonstrated that SP-RAPN is a safe and feasible approach to performing partial nephrectomy, although with inferior outcomes for ischemia time and blood transfusion rates. Further studies will be necessary to define the best usage of SP-RAPN within the surgeon's armamentarium.

Single-port vs multi-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: A single center propensity score-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study is to compare key outcomes of Single-Port (SP) and Multi-Port (MP) robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on our prospectively collected database of patients who underwent SP-RAPN or MP-RAPN at our institution from January 2021 to August 2023. To adjust for potential baseline pre-operative confounders, a 1:1 propensity-score matching analysis (PSMa) was performed. The primary endpoint was to compare perioperative outcomes between the two groups. The secondary endpoint was to compare the achievement of the "Trifecta" outcome (defined as negative surgical margins, absence of high-grade complications and change in eGFR values (ΔeGFR) < 10% at 6 months follow-up) in the matched cohort.

RESULTS

After PSMa, 30 SP cases were matched 1:1 to 30 MP cases. In the matched cohort, there were no significant differences between SP and MP approaches in operative time, estimated blood loss, ischemia time, transfusions rate, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and positive surgical margin rates. Patients who underwent SP-RAPN had a shorter median length of stay [25 (IQR:24.0-34.5) vs 34 (IQR:30.2-48.0) hours, p < 0.003]. The Trifecta outcome was achieved in 16 (57%) of SP patients and 17 (63%) of MP patients (p = 0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

SP-RAPN can be safely implemented in a Center with an established MP-RAPN program. Despite being early in the SP-RAPN experience, key surgical outcomes are not compromised. While offering comparable perioperative and short-term functional outcomes, SP-RAPN can translate into faster recovery and shorter LOS, paving the way for outpatient robotic surgery.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of single-port versus multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether the da Vinci single-port system performs similarly to the previous multi-port system during complicated procedures, such as rectal cancer surgery. Therefore, we compared the short-term clinical outcomes of single-port and multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed 128 patients who underwent robotic total mesorectal excision between July 2020 and June 2022, of whom 84 (42 each: single-port versus multi-port) were included in the propensity score-matched cohort. Perioperative and pathologic outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Median tumor height was similar between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 5.9 ± 2.1 vs 5.6 ± 1.8 cm, P = .719). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was performed equally. The total operative time was less (160.0 ± 42.2 minutes vs 199.6 ± 78.6 minutes, P = .005), the total length of incision was shorter (4.0 ±0.3 vs 5.4 ± 0.7 cm, P = .003), postoperative hospital stay was shorter (6.2 ±1.7 vs 7.2 ±2.8 days, P = .050), and C-reactive protein levels on postoperative day 3 trended to be lower (7.3 ± 4.7 vs 8.9 ± 5.6 mg/L, P = .096) in the single-port group, compared with the multi-port group. Postoperative complications did not differ between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 11.9% vs 16.6%, P = .864). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 1 and 2 patients in the single-port and multi-port groups, respectively. The circumferential resection margins were positive in 1 patient in the multi-port group.

CONCLUSION

The perioperative outcomes of single-port robotic total mesorectal excision were comparable to those of multi-port robotic TME. The single-port robot can be considered a surgical option for treating rectal cancer.

Comparison of Single-Port Robotic Donor Nephrectomy and Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

Purpose: To compare the intra- and postoperative outcomes of single-port robotic donor nephrectomies (SP RDNs) and laparoscopic donor nephrectomies (LDNs). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database for patients who received LDN or SP RDN between September 2020 and December 2022. Donor baseline characteristics, intraoperative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and recipient renal function were extracted and compared between LDN and SP RDN. SP RDN learning curve analysis based on operative time and graft extraction time was performed using cumulative sum analysis. Results: One hundred forty-four patients underwent LDN and 32 patients underwent SP RDN. LDN and SP RDN had similar operative times (LDN: 190.3 ± 28.0 minutes, SP RDN: 194.5 ± 35.1 minutes, p = 0.3253). SP RDN patients had significantly greater extraction times (LDN: 83.2 ± 40.3 seconds, SP RDN: 204.1 ± 52.2 seconds, p < 0.0001) and warm ischemia times (LDN: 145.1 ± 61.7 seconds, SP RDN: 275.4 ± 65.6 seconds, p < 0.0001). There were no differences in patient subjective pain scores, inpatient opioid usage, or Clavien-Dindo II+ complications. Short- and medium-term postoperative donor and recipient renal function were also similar between the groups. SP RDN graft extraction time and total operative time learning curves were achieved at case 27 and 13, respectively. Conclusion: SP RDN is a safe and feasible alternative to LDN that minimizes postoperative abdominal incisional scars and has a short learning curve. Future randomized prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm the findings of this study and to identify other potential benefits and drawbacks of SP RDNs.

Comparing the safety and efficacy of single-port versus multi-port robotic-assisted techniques in urological surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Comparing the safety and efficacy of single-port (SP) versus multi-port (MP) robotic-assisted techniques in urological surgeries.

METHODS

A systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis was performed using PRISMA criteria for primary outcomes of interest, and quality assessment followed AMSTAR. Four databases were systematically searched: Embase, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The search time range is from database creation to December 2022. Stata16 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

There were 17 studies involving 5015 patients. In urological surgeries, single-port robotics had shorter length of stay (WMD = - 0.63, 95% Cl [- 1.06, - 0.21], P < 0.05), less estimated blood loss (WMD = - 19.56, 95% Cl [- 32.21, - 6.91], P < 0.05), less lymph node yields (WMD = - 3.35, 95% Cl [- 5.16, - 1.55], P < 0.05), less postoperative opioid use (WMD = - 5.86, 95% Cl [- 8.83, - 2.88], P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in operative time, positive margins rate, overall complications rate, and major complications rate.

CONCLUSION

Single-port robotics appears to have similar perioperative outcomes to multi-port robotics in urological surgery. In radical prostatectomy, single-port robotics has shown some advantages, but the specific suitability of single-port robots for urological surgical types needs to be further explored.

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.

Single-port vs multi-port robot-assisted renal surgery: analysis of perioperative outcomes for excision of high and low complexity renal masses

There is emerging but limited data assessing single-port (SP) robot-assisted surgery as an alternative to multi-port (MP) platforms. We compared perioperative outcomes between SP and MP robot-assisted approaches for excision of high and low complexity renal masses. Retrospective chart review was performed for patients undergoing robot-assisted partial or radical nephrectomy using the SP surgical system (n = 23) at our institution between November 2019 and November 2021. Renal masses were categorized as high complexity (7+) or low complexity (4-6) using the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system. Adjusting for baseline characteristics, patients were matched using a prospectively maintained MP database in a 2:1 (MP:SP) ratio. For high complexity tumors (n = 12), SP surgery was associated with a significantly longer operative time compared to MP (248.4 vs 188.1 min, p = 0.02) but a significantly shorter length of stay (1.9 vs 2.8 days, p = 0.02). For low complexity tumors (n = 11), operative time (177.7 vs 161.4 min, p = 0.53), estimated blood loss (69.6.0 vs 142.0 mL, p = 0.62), and length of stay (1.6 vs 1.8 days, p = 0.528) were comparable between SP and MP approaches. Increasing nephrometry score was associated with a greater relative increase in operative time for SP compared to MP renal surgery (p = 0.07) using best of fit linear modeling. SP robot-assisted partial and radical nephrectomy is safe and feasible for low complexity renal masses. For high complexity renal masses, the SP system is associated with a significantly longer operative time compared to the MP technique. Careful consideration should be given when selecting patients for SP robot-assisted kidney surgery.

Early perioperative outcomes of single-port compared to multi-port robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy

Single-port (SP) robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is a promising new technique. The aim of this study was to compare surgical and oncological outcomes of SP-RAPN to the multi-port (MP) surgical platform. This is a retrospective, cohort-based study involving patients undergoing SP-RAPN between 2019 and 2020 at a single institution. Demographic, preoperative, surgical, and postoperative outcomes data were gathered and compared to a 1-to-1 matched MP cohort. A total of 50 SP and 50 matched MP cases were included. Length of surgery and ischemia time were not statistically significant between the two cohorts; however, estimated blood loss (EBL) was significantly lower in the SP group than in the MP (IQR 25-50 vs. IQR 50-100 mL, p = 0.002). No differences were seen in regard to the 30-day readmission rate, surgical margin status, pain scores, and complications between the two approaches. We found no statistically significant differences in positive margins, pain score, length of stay, or readmission rate between matched SP and MP patients. These data support the viability of the SP technique as an alternative to MP-RAPN when in the hands of experienced surgeons.

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 robotic partial nephrectomy: impact on perioperative outcomes and hospital stay

Single-port (SP) robotic surgery is a novel technology and is at the beginning of its adoption curve in urology. The goal of this narrative review is to provide an overview of SP-robotic partial nephrectomy (PN) 4 years after the introduction of the da Vinci SP dedicated platform, focusing on perioperative outcomes, length of stay, and surgical technique. A nonsystematic review of the literature was conducted. The research included the most updated articles that referred to SP robotic PN. Since its commercial release in 2018, several institutions have reproduced robotic PN by using the SP platform, both via a transperitoneal and a retroperitoneal approach. The published SP-robotic PN series are generally based on preliminary experiences by surgeons who had previous experience with conventional multi-arms robotic platforms. The reported outcomes are encouraging. Overall, three studies reported that SP-robotic PN cases had nonsignificantly different operative time, estimated blood loss, overall complications rate, and length of stay compared to the conventional 'multi-arms' robotic PN. However, in all these series, renal masses treated by SP had overall lower complexity. Moreover, two studies underlined decreased postoperative pain as a major pro of adopting the SP system. This should reduce/avoid the need for opioids after surgery. No study compared SP-robotic versus multi-arms robotic PN in cost-effectiveness. Published experience with SP-robotic PN has reported the feasibility and safety of the approach. Preliminary results are encouraging and at least noninferior with respect to those from the multi-arms series. Prospective comparative studies with long-term oncologic and functional results are awaited to draw more definitive conclusions and better establish the more appropriate indications of SP robotics in the field of PN.