Two-port Robot-assisted vs Standard Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: A Matched-pair Comparison

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.

Clinical status and future prospects of single-incision robotic-assisted surgery: a review

Since the advent of conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery, the prosperity of minimally invasive surgery has been thriving on the advancement of endoscopic techniques. Cosmetic superiority, recovery benefits, and noninferior surgical outcomes weigh single-incision laparoscopic surgery as a promising modality. Although there are surgical challenges posed by steep learning curve and technological difficulties, such as instruments collision, triangulation loss and limited retraction, the establishment of robotic surgical platform as a solution to all is inspiring. Furthermore, with enhanced instrument maneuverability and stability, robotic ergonomic innovations adopt the advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery and surmount its recognized barriers by introducing a novel combination, single-incision robotic-assisted surgery. As was gradually diffused in general surgery and other specialties, single-incision robotic-assisted surgery manifests privileges in noninferior clinical outcomes an satisfactory cosmetic effect among strictly selected patients, and has the potential of a preferable surgical option for minimally invasive surgery.

Single-Port Robotic Applications in Urology

Objective: The da Vinci single-port (SP) platform represents the latest innovation in minimally invasive urologic surgery, and the adoption of this technology by urologists is increasing. In this article, we briefly describe the evolution of minimally invasive and single-site surgery, and offer a comprehensive review of the current literature on the SP platform. Materials and Methods: For relevant articles, three electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched from their inception until August 15, 2022. The published literature to date within SP robotic surgery in urology will be discussed. Evidence Synthesis: There are relatively few high-quality studies on the SP system, but there are multiple case series describing unique indications and surgical approaches with the SP robot, demonstrating safety and feasibility in the hands of experienced robotic surgeons. There also are an increasing number of prospective, larger cohort studies comparing outcomes between SP and multiport (MP) approaches that show benefits of the SP system regarding improved cosmesis, postoperative pain control, and decreased length of stay. Conclusions: Multiple prospective studies have shown benefits regarding cost and pain control for SP platform procedures compared to the traditional MP robotic approach. While its high cost and learning curve represent barriers to adoption, the SP platform represents a critical development in minimally invasive surgery. As this technology is further implemented at more institutions, long-term, high-quality data should accrue that will demonstrate its true value.

Single Port Robotic Surgery in Urology

PURPOSE

To provide a comprehensive review on the new da Vinci SP (single port) robotic surgical system. The published literature to date within urology and a description of the new system will be discussed.

FINDINGS

There are currently no high-quality published studies with the SP robotic system. All studies are case series, many with 10 or fewer patients. However, all studies have found the SP system to be safe and feasible in performing most urological procedures. Renal and pelvic surgery using the SP robotic system is safe and feasible in the hands of expert robotic surgeons. Long-term, high-quality data is lacking. While the current high price and the learning curve will limit the SP systems' use in many health care systems, new updates and the release of robotic surgical systems from other developers may help drive down costs and encourage uptake.

Single-port technique evolution and current practice in urologic procedures

Different groups described the single-port surgery since its first report in laparoscopic procedures. However, the acceptance of this technique among urologists, even after the robotic approach, was reduced in the past years. Therefore, to overcome the challenges related to the single-port surgery, a new robotic platform named da Vinci SP was created with exclusive single port technology. We performed a non-systematic literature review regarding the single port technique in urologic surgeries since the first laparoscopic report until the da Vinci SP robotic platform. Three different periods were described (laparoscopy, robotic, and da Vinci SP), and we focused in our experience with this new single port robot. We selected different articles and summarized the information regarding the use of single-site surgery in laparoscopic procedures and the challenges of this approach. We also reported the experience of different groups using the single port robotic technique and some recent reports of the da Vinci SP approach. In our experience with this new console, we described some critical points related to our radical prostatectomy technique and the lessons learned during the introduction of this novel platform. Previous single-site procedures described some common challenges that limited the technique expansion. However, our experience with the da Vinci SP described feasible and safe procedures with acceptable intraoperative outcomes. The introduction of this platform is recent in the market, and the literature still lacks a high level of evidence describing the long-term outcomes of this new technology.

Robotic Single-port Surgery: Paving the Way for the Future

Adoption of robotic technology in urology has been widely popularized as it provides considerable advantages over standard techniques, including improved instrument dexterity, three-dimensional high-definition optics, and enhanced ergonomics. As a result, these features have facilitated the adaptation of robotics for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) to overcome challenges with clashing, suturing, and intra-abdominal triangulation. Since the inception of robotic LESS by our institution in 2008,(1) many centers have gone on to study this approach in various urologic applications. Herein we discuss the evolution of robotic LESS access, instrumentation, and outcomes with special focus on up-and-coming technology.

Robotic single port surgery: Current status and future considerations

Introduction and Objectives:

It has been established that robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery has several advantages when compared with standard laparoscopic surgery. Optics, ergonomics, dexterity and precision are all enhanced with the use of a robotic platform. For these reasons, it was postulated that the application of robotics to laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) could overcome some of the constraints seen with the conventional laparoscopic approach. Issues such as instrument clashing, inability to achieve effective triangulation for dissection and difficulties with intracorporeal suturing have limited the widespread adoption of conventional LESS. The application of robotics has eliminated many of the constraints experienced with conventional LESS; however, challenges still remain.

Materials and Methods:

A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed to identify relevant studies. There were no time restrictions applied to the search, but only studies in English were included. We used the following search terms: Robotic single site surgery, robotic single port surgery, robotic single incision surgery and robotic laparoendoscopic single site surgery.

Results:

A number of centers have published their experience with robotic-laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (R-LESS); however, no prospective studies exist. What is clear is that R-LESS minimizes several of the difficulties experienced with conventional LESS, including intracorporeal suturing and triangulation during dissection. Outcomes are comparable to standard robotic surgery, with a trend toward improved cosmesis and reduced pain. However, a significant advantage with regard to these two factors has yet to be demonstrated.

Conclusions:

R-LESS is technically feasible and the benefits of robotic surgery eliminate many of the challenges seen with conventional LESS. However, despite the advantages of the robotic platform, R-LESS is not free of challenges. Instrument clashing remains an issue due to the bulky profile of the current robotic system. Other issues include lack of space for the assistant at the bedside, inability to incorporate the 4^th robotic arm for retraction and difficulties with triangulation. Although solutions for some of these issues are currently under development, R-LESS is still very much in its infancy.

Current status and future directions of robotic single-site surgery: a systematic review

CONTEXT

Despite the increasing interest in laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) worldwide, the actual role of this novel approach in the field of minimally invasive urologic surgery remains to be determined. It has been postulated that robotic technology could be applied to LESS to overcome the current constraints.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and critically analyze the available evidence on the current status and future of robotic applications in single-site surgery.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature review was performed in April 2011 using PubMed and the Thomson-Reuters Web of Science. In the free-text protocol, the following terms were applied: robotic single site surgery, robotic single port surgery, robotic single incision surgery, and robotic laparoendoscopic single site surgery. Review articles, editorials, commentaries, and letters to the editor were included only if deemed to contain relevant information. In addition, cited references from the selected articles and from review articles retrieved in the search were assessed for significant manuscripts not previously included. The authors selected 55 articles according to the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis criteria.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The volume of available clinical outcomes of robotic LESS (R-LESS) has considerably grown since the pioneering description of the first successful clinical series of single-port robotic procedures. So far, a cumulative number of roughly 150 robotic urologic LESS cases have been reported by different institutions across the globe with a variety of techniques and port configurations. The feasibility of robot-assisted single-incision colorectal procedures, as well as of many gynecologic procedures, has also been demonstrated. A novel set of single-site instruments specifically dedicated to LESS is now commercially available for use with the da Vinci Si surgical system, and both experimental and clinical use have been reported. However, the current robotic systems were specifically designed for LESS. The ideal robotic platform should have a low external profile, the possibility of being deployed through a single access site, and the possibility of restoring intra-abdominal triangulation while maintaining the maximum degree of freedom for precise maneuvers and strength for reliable traction. Several purpose-built robotic prototypes for single-port surgery are being tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant advances have been achieved in the field of R-LESS since the first reported clinical series in 2009. Given the several advantages offered by current the da Vinci system, it is likely that its adoption in this field will increase. The recent introduction of purpose-built instrumentation is likely to further foster the application of robotics to LESS. However, we are still far from the ideal robotic platform. Significant improvements are needed before this technique might reach widespread adoption beyond selected centers. Further advances in the field of robotic technology are expected to provide the optimal interface to facilitate LESS.

Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: From present to future

The continued effort of improving cosmesis and reducing morbidity in urologic surgery has given rise to novel alternatives to traditional minimally invasive techniques: Laparoendoscopic Single-site Surgery (LESS) and Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES). Despite the development of specialized access devices and instruments, the performance of complex procedures using LESS has been challenging due to loss of triangulation and instrument clashing. A robotic interface may represent the key factor in overcoming the critical restrictions related to NOTES and LESS. Although encouraging, current clinical evidence related to R-LESS remains limited as the current da Vinci^® robotic platform has not been specifically designed for LESS. Robotic innovations are imminent and are likely to govern major changes to the current landscape of scarless surgery.

Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery: recent advances in urology

Significant advances have been achieved in the field of urologic laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) since the first reported clinical series in 2007. The aim of the present review paper is to summarize and critically analyze the most recent advances in the field of urologic LESS. A literature review was performed using PubMed to retrieve publications related to LESS in urology over the last two years (from January 2011 to May 2012). In the free-text protocol, the following terms were applied: LESS; single port laparoscopy; single incision laparoscopy. Despite unsolved challenges, LESS can be regarded as an emerging trend in minimally invasive urologic surgery and it has significantly evolved, becoming a widely applicable technique in a relatively short time. Outcomes demonstrate that a broad range of procedures can be effectively and safely done, given a solid laparoscopic surgical background and stringent patient-selection criteria. The recent introduction of a purpose-built instrumentation is likely to further foster the application of robotics to LESS. Further improvements are needed before this technique might reach a widespread adoption. Future advances in the field of robotic technology are expected to overcome the current limitations of LESS.