Comparison of Perioperative and Pathologic Outcomes Between Single-port and Standard Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: An Analysis of a High-volume Center and the Pooled World Experience

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.

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.

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.

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.

Deep neuromuscular block attenuates intra-abdominal pressure and inflammation and improves post-operative cognition in prostate cancer patients following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Whether neuromuscular block (NMB) affects Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and cognition in Prostate cancer (PC) patients with Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) remains unclear. Here we aimed to compare the effects of deep and moderate NMB on the IAP, inflammation, and cognition.

METHODS

The Moderate neuromuscular block (MNMB) group (N = 44) and Deep neuromuscular block (DNMB) group (N = 47) were recruited. Intra-abdominal pressure was adjusted to meet RALRP requirements. The expression of pro-inflammatory factors was measured by ELISA. MMSE scores were recorded before the operation, 1 day and 1 week after the operation.

RESULTS

Significant decreases in IAP (p < 0.001) and IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-a, and S-100β (p ≤ 0.01) expressions were found in the DNMB group. The MMSE score in the DNMB group was higher than that in the MNMB group on day one (p = 0.046). The incidence of nausea and vomiting was lower in the DNMB group than that in the MNMB group (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

DNMB reduces IAP and inflammation and improves post-operative cognitive functions in PC patients with RALRP.

Recent advances in single-site/incision robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Single-site robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (ssRARP) has been successfully applied to treat prostate cancer. This review aims to describe the recent advances of surgical approaches, working accesses and novel robotic platforms in ssRARP.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Scopus databases in December 2022 to identify all literature related to ssRARP.

RESULTS

A total of 48 relevant studies were found worldwide from 2008 to 2023. Since the introduction of ssRARP, various modifications of this technique in surgical approaches, working accesses and novel robotic platforms have been developed. The application of ssRARP using the da Vinci SP platform has shown great superiority with encouraging clinical outcomes.

DISCUSSION

There has been a potential shift toward ssRARP using the da Vinci SP platform due to its potential advantages in terms of lower blood loss, minimal postoperative pain, better cosmetic outcome and rapid recovery. More convincing evidence, further technical improvement and higher cost-effectiveness are needed for its widespread acceptance.

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.

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.

Prostate Cancer-PET Imaging Update

Prostate cancer is the most common non-dermatologic cancer in men, and one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality. The incidence of prostate cancer increases precipitously after the age of 65 and demonstrates variable aggressiveness, depending on its grade and stage at diagnosis. Despite recent advancements in prostate cancer treatment, recurrence is seen in 25% of patients. Advancements in prostate cancer Positron Emission Tomography (PET) molecular imaging and recent United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals have led to several new options for evaluating prostate cancer. This manuscript will review the commonly used molecular imaging agents, with an emphasis on Fluorine-18 fluciclovine (Axumin) and PSMA-ligand agents, including their protocols, imaging interpretation, and pitfalls.

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.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Advancements in surgical technique and perioperative care

We reviewed the evolving strategies, practice patterns, and recent advancements aimed at improving the perioperative and surgical outcomes in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for the management of localized prostate cancer.

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.

Super-veil nerve-sparing extraperitoneal pure single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy on da Vinci Si robotic system

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the safety profile and short-term outcome of super-veil nerve-sparing extraperitoneal single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (espRARP) on da Vinci Si platform.

METHODS

From December 2018 to March 2021, 106 consecutive patients with treatment-naive prostate cancer were prospectively included. espRARP was performed on da Vinci Si surgical platform. Operative time, estimated blood loss, Clavien-Dindo complication classification, continence, potency recovery, quality-of-life scores, and postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were documented.

RESULTS

Patients aged 52-79 years (mean ± SD, 64.8 ± 6.15 yrs), with a median PSA of 9.2 ng/ml (IQR: 6.70, 16.83) and median prostate volume of 31.9 ml (IQR: 30.01, 38.54). 95.28% (101/106) were clinically localized. All patients underwent espRARP successfully with no open conversions. Operative time was 94.2 ± 30.26 min with an estimated blood loss of 68.5 ml (range, 50-120 ml). No Grade III complications or above were documented. Positive surgical margin was 17.9% (19/106). Median pain score at discharge was 0 (IQR: 0, 1.75) without use of opioid narcotics. Postoperative length of stay was 3 days (IQR: 1, 3), in which 28 patients were discharged within 24 h. Instant, 1-, 3-, and 6 month continence recovery was 18.9, 45.3, 79.2, 93.4, and 96.4%, respectively. Of the 43 patients who received nerve-sparing procedures, 13 (30.23%) resumed potency 6 months postoperatively. 12 month biochemical recurrence-free survival was 92.77% (77/83).

CONCLUSIONS

Extraperitoneal single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy is a safe and feasible technique. Combined with super-veil nerve-sparing procedures, it may provide satisfactory outcome in short-term functional recovery.

Single-port versus multiport robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the da Vinci SP platform

CONTEXT

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men; robotic prostatectomy has cemented itself as part of the standard of care. Since its approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018, the SP console's application has been increasingly studied and compared with the multiport (MP) robotic approach.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines and PROSPERO registration CRD42021228744, a systematic review was performed in April 2021 on single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies (SP-RARPs) compared to MP. Outcomes of interest were operative time, bleeding, complications, analgesic use, and postoperative continence, and erectile function. Data were analyzed with Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included, of which six studies met the inclusion criteria for quantitative synthesis, totalling 1068 patients, out of which 324 underwent SP-RARP and 744 underwent MP-RARP. No differences were found in baseline characteristics such as age, body mass index, prostatic-specific antigen, or stage. No differences in blood loss-15.77 mL [-42.44, 10.89], p = 0.25, operative time 3.93 min [-4.12, 11.98], p = 0.34, or positive surgical margins, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.78 [0.55, 1.10], p = 0.15-were found. Length of stay was significantly shorter in SP -0.94 days [-1.56, -0.33], p = 0.003, with no differences in complication rates, with an OR of 1.29 [0.78, 2.14], p = 0.32, continence rates, with an OR of 1.29 [0.90, 1.83], p = 0.16, erectile function, with an OR of 0.86 [0.52, 1.40], p = 0.54, or biochemical recurrence. Qualitative evidence suggests decreased opioid consumption.

CONCLUSION

SP-RARPs are feasible alternatives to the traditional MP with possible benefits in pain management and length of stay. Future high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.

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

Purpose: Although single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP) is considered a safe and feasible approach for radical prostatectomy, the comparative performance of the SP robot with earlier models, including da Vinci Xi or Si, is elusive. This systematic review summarizes the current evidence on SP-RARP and compares its perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes to multiport robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (MP-RARP). Methods: We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library database for randomized control trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that compare SP-RARP to MP-RARP. The primary outcomes included perioperative, functional, oncologic, and painful outcomes. The odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were applied for the comparison of dichotomous and continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Seven studies, including 1239 patients, were enrolled in the meta-analysis. We reported similar results for SP-RARP and MP-RARP in terms of the operative time, blood loss, continence and potency rates, complication rate, positive surgical margin, and biochemical recurrence. However, hospital stay (WMD -17.86 hours, 95% CI -27.80 to -7.92; p = 0.0004), catheterization time (WMD -1.51 days, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.41; p = 0.007), and the rate of opioid use (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.53; p = 0.0002) were less with SP-RARP. In addition, more patients did not require any pain medication during the hospital stay with SP-RARP (OR 14.41, 95% CI 5.22 to 39.76; p < 0.00001). Conclusions: SP-RARP is associated with a shorter hospital stay and catheterization time, and the need for postoperative pain medication is lower compared to MP-RARP, with comparable perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes.