Single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci SP system: A single surgeon's experience

Robot-assisted Single-port Radical Prostatectomy with the SHURUI SP and da Vinci SP Platforms: Comparison of the Technology, Intraoperative Performance, and Outcomes

Background and objective

The purpose-built SHURUI single-port (SP) robotic platform has recently been introduced for several procedures in urology, general surgery, and gynecology. However, comparative evidence on its performance in relation to earlier models such as the da Vinci SP is lacking. Our aim was to compare the step-by-step techniques and 1-yr outcomes for radical prostatectomy (RP) between the SHURUI SP and da Vinci SP robots.

Methods

Data were retrieved from two prospectively maintained databases. The SHURUI SP robot was used to perform RP in 34 patients in China (September 2021 to August 2022); the da Vinci SP robot was used to perform 100 consecutive RP cases in the USA (June 2019 to October 2020). A comparative analysis was conducted before and after 1:1 propensity score matching for age, body mass index, American Urological Association symptom score, prostate size, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, biopsy grade group, and D'Amico risk group. Intraoperative performance and short-term oncological and continence outcomes were compared between the groups. Biochemical recurrence was defined as two consecutive postoperative PSA levels >0.2 ng/ml. Continence was defined as full recovery of urinary control without the use of pads. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate continence recovery curves, and a log-rank test for trend was used to detect ordered differences in continence recovery between the SHURUI SP and da Vinci SP groups after surgery.

Key findings and limitations

For the matched SHURUI and da Vinci groups, median age (69 vs 69 yr), median PSA (8.4 vs 7.1 ng/ml), and the proportion of patients with low-risk (33.3% vs 29.6%), intermediate-risk (66.7% vs 63%), and high-risk disease (0% vs 7.4%) were comparable (all p > 0.05). All surgeries were successfully accomplished without conversion. A higher percentage of cases in the SHURUI group involved extraperitoneal access (81.5% vs 0%; p < 0.001) and a pure SP approach (25.9% vs 0%; p = 0.01), while a higher percentage of cases in the da Vinci group had nerve-sparing surgery. The median total operative (215 vs 110 min; p < 0.001) and median console time (162 vs 75 min; p < 0.001) were significantly longer in the SHURUI group. No intraoperative or major postoperative complications were observed in either group. Rates of positive surgical margins (18.5% vs 14.8%; p = 1.0) and extraprostatic extension (14.8% vs 29.6%; p = 0.19) were similar. At median follow-up of 13.5 versus 15.9 mo, none of the patients had experienced biochemical recurrence. At 1 yr after surgery, the continence rate was 96.3% in both groups.

Conclusions

Despite differences in driving mechanisms between the two SP robotic systems, RP can be performed safely and effectively with the SHURUI RP robot during the initial learning phase, with similar short-term oncological and continence outcomes to those with the da Vinci SP robot.

Patient summary

We compared two surgical robots (SHURUI SP and da Vinci SP) used to perform robotic surgery to remove the prostate through a single keyhole incision instead of multiple incisions. Our results show comparable technology and similar surgical and short-term cancer control outcomes for the two robots.

Single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

To provide a comprehensive update on the different techniques and outcomes of contemporary Single-Port (SP) Robotic Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) approaches.

METHODS

A literature review was performed to identify cohort studies that have utilized the purpose-built SP robotic platform (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, California) for RARP. All published approaches of SP-RARP were included in our review. Baseline clinical, perioperative, and postoperative oncological and functional outcomes were collected from the included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies involving 1159 patients were identified. To date, five approaches of SP-RARP have been described, namely Transperitoneal, Extraperitoneal, Retzius-Sparing, Transperineal, and Transvesical. The surgical steps and clinical outcomes of the aforementioned approaches were discussed. While operating times were still faster in the Transperitoneal and Extraperitoneal cohorts, the novel and more regionalized Transvesical approach allowed for radical prostatectomy to be pursued in more patients with previous abdominal surgeries and contributed to significantly improved postoperative outcomes, including the earlier return of urinary continence and with most patients being discharged on the same day without any opioids.

CONCLUSION

Based on the existing literature, the introduction of SP-RARP not only enriched the repertoire of minimally-invasive surgical treatment options for prostate cancer but also provided the opportunity for urologists to develop new techniques that can improve perioperative outcomes and postoperative quality of life. Given the limited number of patients and heterogeneity in the patient selection and reporting of postoperative outcomes, further research remains necessary to better understand the different benefits and improve patient selection algorithms for the different techniques.

Perioperative, function, and positive surgical margin in extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal single port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches are two common modalities in single-port (SP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), but differences in safety and efficacy between the two remain controversial. This study aimed to compare the perioperative, function, and positive surgical margin of extraperitoneal with transperitoneal approaches SP-RARP.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, this study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42023409667). We systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies published up to February 2023. Stata 15.1 software was used to analyze and calculate the risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD).

RESULTS

A total of five studies, including 833 participants, were included in this study. The SP-TPRP group is superior to the SP-EPRP group in intraoperative blood loss (WMD: - 43.92, 95% CI - 69.81, - 18.04; p = 0.001), the incidence of postoperative Clavien-Dindo grade II and above complications (RR: 0.55, 95% CI - 0.31, 0.99; p = 0.04), and postoperative continence recovery (RR: 1.23, 95% CI 1.05, 1.45; p = 0.04). Conversely, the hospitalization stays (WMD: 7.88, 95% confidence interval: 0.65, 15.1; p = 0.03) for the SP-EPRP group was shorter than that of the SP-TPRP group. However, there was no significant difference in operation time, postoperative pain score, total incidence of postoperative complications, and positive surgical margin (PSM) rates between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that both extraperitoneal and extraperitoneal SP-RARP approaches are safe and effective. SP-TPRP is superior to SP-EPRP in postoperative blood loss, the incidence of postoperative Clavien-Dindo grade II and above complications, and postoperative continence recovery, but it is accompanied by longer hospital stays.

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.

Technique and perioperative outcomes of single-port robotic surgery using the da Vinci SP platform in urology

OBJECTIVE

To describe surgical technique for single port robotic surgery using the da Vinci SP system and report the perioperative outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between Jan 2019 and Jan 2021, single-port robotic urologic surgeries were performed in 120 patients by a single surgeon. Clinicopathologic data and perioperative outcomes were collected. All surgical procedures were performed with a transperitoneal approach through an umbilical single port. Additional assistant port was used in complex procedures for malignant disease. Surgeries were carried out using both above and below camera position for effective retraction. For reconstructive surgery using intestine, an extra-intracorporeal hybrid method was used. Surgical procedures involving both kidney and pelvis were performed without change of patient position or trocar placement.

RESULTS

Mean age was 62.7 years and 102 patients were male. For oncologic indication, 105 patients underwent surgeries including 66 radical prostatectomy, 25 partial nephrectomy, six radical nephrectomies, five nephroureterectomy and three radical cystectomy with urinary diversion. Fifteen cases with benign indication included four ureterolithotomy, seven uretero/pyeloplasty, three ureteroneocystostomy, and one ileal ureter reconstruction. All surgeries were performed successfully without conversion to other surgical approach. Clavien-Dindo grade III complication occurred in two patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The da Vinci SP system provides a new robotic surgical platform for single port surgery while maintaining the major features of robotic surgery similar to multi-port surgery. Various single port urologic surgeries can be safely performed with this platform.

Comparison of single-port and multi-port Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

Dissemination of robotic surgical technology for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) has yielded advancements including the Retzius-sparing (RS) approach and the single-port (SP) platform. The safety and feasibility of each individual advancement have been evaluated, yet there is a lack of literature comparing SP RS-RALP to conventional multi-port (MP) RS-RALP. All patients who underwent RS-RALP at our institution between January 2019 and February 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Data regarding baseline patient and tumor characteristics, operative characteristics, and surgical outcomes were collected and analyzed using the Fisher's exact test and two-tailed unpaired t tests. 62 patients were evaluated: 31 received SP RS-RALP and 31 received MP RS-RALP. Differences in patient age, BMI, and initial PSA were not observed. Lower median lymph node yield (SP: 4 vs MP: 12, p < 0.01), lower estimated blood loss (SP: 111.2 vs. MP 157.8 mL, p < 0.01), shorter operative time (SP: 207.7 vs. MP: 255.9 min, p < 0.01) and decreased length of stay (SP: 0.39 vs. MP: 1.23 days, p < 0.01) were observed in the SP RS-RALP cohort. No differences in positive surgical margins, complications, or biochemical recurrence rates were observed. SP RS-RALP is non-inferior to MP RS-RALP in terms of both perioperative and early oncologic outcomes. Despite the small sample size, the SP platform is a safe and feasible option for RS-RALP and confers potential benefits in the form of shorter operative time and reduced length of stay.

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.

Da Vinci Single-Port Robotic Radical Prostatectomy

The field of robotic surgery continues to evolve and the advent of the single-port (SP) platform is another step toward the future. The SP platform is a new technology that has promising implications for urologic surgery. Since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared this platform in 2018, multiple urologic procedures have been described, with radical prostatectomy being the most common. This article aims to describe and illustrate the step-by-step technique of SP radical prostatectomy. We have described our technique from the patient positioning and trocar placement until the anastomosis. We included in the video compilation surgical steps such as bladder dropping and anterior bladder neck dissection, posterior bladder neck and seminal vesicles, posterior prostate dissection and nerve sparing, apical dissection and dorsal venous complex control, posterior reconstruction and anastomosis, and lymph node dissection.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Overall and Top 100 Most-Cited Studies About Robotic Surgery Versus Open Surgery

BACKGROUND

In the last 30 years, significant progress in the field of surgery has been achieved with the advent of robotic surgery. In this study, we aimed to conduct a bibliometric analysis to identify the distribution and characteristics overall and of the top 100 most-cited studies about robotic surgery versus open surgery.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on March 26, 2021 using Web of Science Core Collection. Two reviewers independently screened documents, and the top 100 most-cited studies were identified. Excel 2019 and VOSviewer were used to collect the data, and visual information was obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 2306 documents were searched from the Web of Science Core Collection, and 1065 journals and 2913 institutes were extracted. A significant growth was observed in the last 15 years. The number of citations from the United States accounted for 33.31% of the total number of citations. There were nine American institutes and one Swedish institute in the top 10 institutes. Four journals in the field of urology or gynecology were present in the top 10 published journals. Few global communications between authors, institutes, and countries authors were observed.

CONCLUSION

The lack of close cooperation among scientific research institutions may have affected the industrialization process of surgical robots. Some developing countries, including South America and Africa, should seize the development opportunity of robotic surgery to improve the level of domestic research on robotic surgery.

Applications of the da Vinci single port (SP) robotic platform in urology: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgical technology has evolved to include a new platform specifically designed for the single-port (SP) approach. Benefits of the da Vinci SP are still under investigation. This study aimed to review the urological literature since the first report of the use of the platform.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a systematic literature review of PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science databases on June 15, 2020 searching for all available articles of da Vinci SP use from December 2014 (date of the first clinical report of da Vinci SP in the urology) until June 1, 2020 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 43 articles were eligible for inclusion. Ten studies reported different surgeries and techniques on cadavers while the rest described the clinical experience of different groups. We divided our article and tables into preclinical experience with surgery on cadavers, radical prostatectomy (RP) approach, and multiple types of procedures described in the same study.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of da Vinci SP in urologic procedures after five years of the first clinical investigation is feasible and safe. Radical prostatectomy is the most common intervention performed with this robot. Some groups described benefits in terms of less postoperative pain and early discharge, especially with the extraperitoneal approach. However, further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are awaited.