Standard Multi-Port versus Single-Port Robot‑Assisted Simple Prostatectomy: A Single Center Initial Experience

Single-port Transvesical Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy: Surgical Technique and Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Surgical management of large prostatic adenomas can be performed via open, endoscopic, or robotic approaches. A low-profile single-port (SP) robot was built to work in confined areas (ie, the bladder) and regionalize surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the novel SP transvesical (TV) robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) and report clinical outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

SP TV RASP cases were performed in an academic hospital by two surgeons from 2019 to 2023. A total of 117 cases were performed, and data from patients with at least 12 mo of follow-up were analyzed. The inclusion criterion was severe obstructive urinary symptoms or catheter-dependent urinary retention due to large prostates with volume >80 ml.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

The procedure consisted of two main steps through a single 3-cm suprapubic incision: first, enucleation of the adenoma, and second, a 360° bladder mucosal flap reconstruction. No drains or continuous bladder irrigation was used routinely.

MEASUREMENTS

Intraoperative parameters, pre- and postoperative uroflowmetry, and 1-yr clinical outcomes were assessed. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the data.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

All procedures were completed successfully without additional ports or conversions. The median console time and estimated blood loss were 107 min and 100 ml, respectively. Transfusion rate was 0%. Intraoperative complications included two suspected air emboli attributed to high insufflation pressures. There were no major postoperative complications. In total, 95.8% were discharged within the first 24 h, with a median length of stay and pain score of 5 h and 3/10, respectively. There was persistent improvement in the median International Prostate Symptom Score and flow rate after 1 yr. The median Sexual Score Inventory for Men score was 20 at 12 mo. Our study is limited by its retrospective nature and cohort size.

CONCLUSIONS

SP TV RASP is a feasible alternative for the management of severe benign prostatic hyperplasia that promotes fast recovery and demonstrates 1-yr improvement in urinary function.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Single-port transvesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy is a minimally invasive alternative for the treatment of large benign prostatic growth. A single robotic arm goes through a small incision in the skin and bladder to extract the obstructive prostatic tissue. Afterward, reconstruction of the area is done to decrease bleeding and improve postoperative symptoms. We found that patients recover quickly and have excellent clinical results with a low risk of complications.

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.

Robot-assisted Surgery in the Field of Urology: The Most Pioneering Approaches 2015-2023

Robot-assisted surgery has emerged as a transformative technology, revolutionizing surgical approaches and techniques that decades ago could barely be imagined. The field of urology has taken charge in pioneering a new era of minimally invasive surgery with the ascent of robotic systems which offer enhanced visualization, precision, dexterity, and enabling surgeons to perform intricate maneuvers with improved accuracy. This has led to improved surgical outcomes, including reduced blood loss, lower complication rates, and faster patient recovery. The aim of our review is to present an evidence-based critical analysis on the most pioneering robotic urologic approaches described over the last eight years (2015-2023).

Outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for very large-sized benign prostatic hyperplasia (over 150 mL): open simple prostatectomy is dead

INTRODUCTION

Our study aimed to describe the outcomes of transurethral enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for large-sized benign prostatic hyperplasia over 150 mL (bBPH).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, descriptive, and analytical study of patients undergoing HoLEP for bBPH. The primary endpoint was the success of the procedure, defined by a mixed criteria: complete endoscopic enucleation of the prostate, absence of blood transfusion or reoperation for bleeding, post-operative improvement of quality of life (assessed by a ≥ 2 points increase at in the 8th question of the IPSS test) and post-operative continence (no pads use) at 3 months.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients were included with a mean age of 73.9 ± 7.3 and a mean measured prostate volume of 183.3 ± 34.5 cc. The mean operative time was 57.5 ± 29.7 min and the average wet weight of resected tissue removed was 151.8 ± 44.7 g. Mean hospitalization stay was 1.3 ± 0.7 days with a mean post-operative catheterization period of 1.9 ± 0.9 days. The success of the surgery was achieved in 77 patients (95%). Functional improvements were found at 1 and 6 months for Qmax, post-void residual, IPSS and QoL-IPSS. The 30-day complication rate was 9.9%. The average PSA level dropped from 14.8 ± 11.6 ng/mL at baseline to 0.8 ± 0.5 ng/mL at 6 months.

CONCLUSION

HoLEP for bBPH is both safe and efficient. Regarding the benefit/risk balance, it should be highlighted as the gold standard for the management of big BPH.

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 Versus Multiport Robot-assisted Simple Prostatectomy: A Multi-institutional Study From the Single-port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC)

OBJECTIVE

To compare robot-assisted simple prostatectomy intraoperative and postoperative.ßoutcomes between single-port (SP) and multiport (MP) robotic systems in a multi-institutional setting.

METHODS

We analyzed all-consecutive robot-assisted simple prostatectomy cases done in 5 centers from January 2017 to October 2022. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and compared with appropriate tests depending on the type of variable and distribution. Statistical significance was considered when P.ß<.05.

RESULTS

A total of 405 cases were analyzed:.ß249 and 156 were MP and SP, respectively. Operative times were similar between groups (P.ß=.ß.62). Estimated blood loss during surgery was significantly lower with the SP robot (P.ß<.001). Postoperatively, the SP approach required a significantly shorter hospital stay, less use of opioids, and a shorter duration of Foley catheter (P.ß<.001). There was no significant difference between the post-operative Clavien-Dindo ...3 complication rate (P.ß=.ß.30). The 30-day readmission rate of MP (10.8%) was significantly higher than for SP (0%) (P.ß<.001). De novo urge incontinence was more common in the MP group (P.ß=.ß.02).

CONCLUSION

The SP robotic approach to simple prostatectomy is advantageous when it comes to postoperative comfort for patients. Specifically, it requires a shorter hospital stay, less use of opioids, and a shorter Foley catheter duration.

Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy: A Comparison of Primary Simple Prostatectomy Versus Salvage Simple Prostatectomy in Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms

Purpose: Simple prostatectomy is indicated in patients with enlarged glands (>80 g) who present with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Salvage robotic simple prostatectomy (SSP) is defined as simple prostatectomy after failed transurethral procedure. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of primary robotic simple prostatectomy (PSP) vs SSP in ameliorating LUTS. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 124 patients who underwent RSP between 2013 and 2021. Indications for surgery were enlarged prostate, bothersome LUTS, or symptoms refractory to medical management and/or previous prostate surgery. PSP and SSP preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative variables were recorded. The severity of LUTS was assessed using the International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS). Two-tailed t-tests were performed to compare primary vs salvage RSP cohorts at a p-value of 0.05. Results: Of 124 patients who underwent RSP, 98 were primary and 26 were in the salvage setting with 19 patients undergoing prior transurethral resection of the prostate, 3 status post-transurethral microwave therapy, 1 status post-transurethral needle ablation of the prostate, and 3 status post-UroLIFT. Mean length of stay following RSP was 1.87 (days). At mean follow-up of ∼12 months, no patient required reoperation for LUTS. Preoperative IPSS for primary and salvage RSP was 18.56 and 16.25, respectively (p = 0.36), and postoperative IPSS for primary and salvage RSP was 5.33 and 8.00, respectively (p = 0.38). Conclusion: Regardless of primary or salvage indication, RSP remains a highly efficient and durable procedure for improvement in LUTS. RSP performed in the salvage setting greatly improved urinary function outcomes in patients after failure of previous transurethral procedures.