Perioperative Outcomes of Single vs Multi-Port Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Single Institutional Experience

No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Sep 2020Perioperative Outcomes of Single vs Multi-Port Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Single Institutional ExperienceThis article is commented on by the following:Editorial Comment Ava Saidian, Andrew M. Fang, Ornin Hakim, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi, Jeffrey W. Nix, and Soroush Rais-Bahrami Ava SaidianAva Saidian *Correspondence: University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham , Alabama E-mail Address: [email protected] Department of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama , Andrew M. FangAndrew M. Fang Department of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama , Ornin HakimOrnin Hakim University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama , Cristina Magi-GalluzziCristina Magi-Galluzzi Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama , Jeffrey W. NixJeffrey W. Nix Department of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at UAB, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama , and Soroush Rais-BahramiSoroush Rais-Bahrami Department of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at UAB, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000811AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: Surgical approach to radical prostatectomy has evolved due to advances in minimally invasive surgery, with most contemporary approaches involving the Si or Xi multi-port robotic systems. U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of the single-port da Vinci® SP robotic platform has led to a few case series suggesting its safety and feasibility for robotic assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer. However, there are no established data on perioperative outcomes comparing single-port to multi-port robotic approaches to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods: All patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy by 2 urological surgeons at our institution between October 2018 and June 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The available preoperative clinical and demographic data, operative parameters and postoperative outcomes were collected and analyzed using the t-test, chi-square and Fisher exact statistical measures. Results: Overall 95 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at our institution were included in our study, with 47 single-port and 48 multi-port. Preoperative clinical parameters including age, body mass index, prior abdominal surgery and biopsy grade group were similar across the 2 groups. No differences in estimated blood loss (169.2±114.2 vs 157.7±125.4 ml, p=0.64), operative time (255.9±44.1 vs 274.7±50.4 minutes, p=0.06), length of hospitalization (1.1±0.5 vs 1.4±1.1 days, p=0.17), rate of perioperative inpatient Clavien-Dindo complications 2 or greater (4.3% vs 6.3% p=0.66) and rate of positive pathological margin (21.3% vs 27.1%, p=0.51) were noted comparing the single-port and multi-port approaches, respectively. Conclusions: The single-port robotic system allows a feasible approach to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and has operative and perioperative outcomes comparable to those of the well accepted multi-port robotic approach. References 1. : Overcoming the learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am 2010; 37: 37. Google Scholar 2. : Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a contemporary analysis of an all-payer discharge database. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 837. Google Scholar 3. : Single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: first clinical experience using the SP surgical system. Urology 2019; 124: 309. Google Scholar 4. : Initial experience with da Vinci single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomies. Eur Urol 2019; 77: 373. Google Scholar 5. : Single‐port robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience and technique with the da Vinci® SP platform. BJU Int 2019; 124: 1022. Google Scholar 6. : Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. In: Hinman's Atlas of Urologic Surgery, 4th ed. Edited by . Philadelphia: Elsevier 2018; vol 1, chapt 79, pp 603–612. Google Scholar 7. : Single-port urological surgery: single-center experience with the first 100 cases. Urology 2009; 74: 801. Google Scholar 8. : Patient-reported body image and cosmesis outcomes following kidney surgery: comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site, laparoscopic, and open surgery. Eur Urol 2011; 69: 1097. Google Scholar 9. : When should a positive surgical margin ring a bell? An analysis of a multi-institutional robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy database. J Endourol 2016; 30: 201. Google Scholar 10. : Changing clinical trends in 10 000 robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy patients and impact of the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force's statement against PSA screening. BJU Int 2019; 124: 1014. Google Scholar No direct or indirect commercial, personal, academic, political, religious or ethical incentive is associated with publishing this article. © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesJournal of Urology26 Jun 2020Editorial Comment Volume 204Issue 3September 2020Page: 490-495 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordsprostatectomyprostatic neoplasmsminimally invasive surgical proceduresrobotic surgical proceduresMetricsAuthor Information Ava Saidian Department of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama *Correspondence: University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham , Alabama E-mail Address: [email protected] More articles by this author Andrew M. Fang Department of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama More articles by this author Ornin Hakim University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama More articles by this author Cristina Magi-Galluzzi Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama More articles by this author Jeffrey W. Nix Department of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at UAB, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama More articles by this author Soroush Rais-Bahrami Department of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at UAB, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama More articles by this author Expand All No direct or indirect commercial, personal, academic, political, religious or ethical incentive is associated with publishing this article. Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...