Advertisement

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

Published:September 03, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.08.046

      Abstract

      Objective

      To perform an early comparative study of outcomes between single-port and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (SP-RALRP) and standard RALRP at our institution and pooled analysis of series to date.

      Patients and Methods

      Patients with organ-confined prostate cancer undergoing SP-RALRP at a high-volume institution were identified retrospectively along with reported SP-RALRP series to date. Data were compared to a contemporary prospective cohort of men undergoing standard RALRP. Patient demographics, perioperative and postoperative data, and complications categorized by the Clavien-Dindo system were compared for the institutional and pooled SP-RALRP cohorts to standard RALRP.

      Results

      A total of 208 SP-RALRP cases were identified (26 from our institution) and compared to 376 standard RALRP cases. In the institutional analysis, there was no difference in operative time, length of stay, overall complications (15.4% vs 17.3%, P= 1.0), major (Clavien ≥III) complications (3.8% vs 3.7%, P = .6), inpatient opioid use, or patient-reported pain scores; median estimated blood loss (100 mL vs 150 mL, P = .02) and number of lymph nodes removed (5.5 vs 9, P = .002) were lower for SP-RALRP. In the pooled analysis, 208 patients receiving SP-RALRP had similar estimated blood loss and complication rates but fewer lymph nodes removed (P = .02) and marginally longer operating time (+16 minutes, P = .01) compared to standard RALRP. The difference in rate of positive surgical margins was not statistically significant (31.3% vs 24.5%, P = .08).

      Conclusion

      Based on an early experience with SP-RALRP at a high-volume center and a pooled analysis of SP series to date, perioperative and pathologic outcomes appear nearly equivalent compared to standard RALRP.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Howlander N
        • Noone A
        • Krapcho M
        • et al.
        SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2016.
        Natl Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland2016
        • Gray PJ
        • Lin CC
        • Cooperberg MR
        • Jemal A
        • Efstathiou JA
        Temporal trends and the impact of race, insurance, and socioeconomic status in the management of localized prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2017; 71: 729-737https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.047
        • Makarov DV
        • Yu JB
        • Desai RA
        • Penson DF
        • Gross CP
        The association between diffusion of the surgical robot and radical prostatectomy rates.
        Med Care. 2011; 49: 333-339https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e318202adb9
        • Oberlin DT
        • Flum AS
        • Lai JD
        • Meeks JJ
        The effect of minimally invasive prostatectomy on practice patterns of American urologists.
        Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2016; 34: 255.e1-255.e5https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.01.008
        • Hu JC
        • Gu X
        • Lipsitz SR
        • et al.
        Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy.
        JAMA – J Am Med Assoc. 2009; 302: 1557-1564https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1451
        • Gandaglia G
        • Karakiewicz PI
        • Sun M
        • et al.
        Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in the postdissemination era.
        J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 1419-1426https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5096
        • Ficarra V
        • Novara G
        • Rosen RC
        • et al.
        Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
        Eur Urol. 2012; : 405-417https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.045
        • Trinh QD
        • Sammon J
        • Sun M
        • et al.
        Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 61: 679-685https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.12.027
        • Diaz M
        • Peabody JO
        • Kapoor V
        • et al.
        Oncologic outcomes at 10 years following robotic radical prostatectomy.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 1168-1176https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.025
        • Kaouk JH
        • Goel RK
        • Haber GP
        • Crouzet S
        • Stein RJ
        Robotic single-port transumbilical surgery in humans: initial report.
        BJU Int. 2009; 103: 366-369https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07949.x
        • Koo K
        • Faisal F
        • Gupta N
        • et al.
        Recommendations for opioid prescribing after endourological and minimally invasive urological surgery: an expert panel consensus.
        J Urol. 2019; 203: 151-158https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000000514
        • Raman JD
        • Bensalah K
        • Bagrodia A
        • Stern JM
        • Cadeddu JA
        Laboratory and clinical development of single keyhole umbilical nephrectomy.
        Urology. 2007; 70: 1039-1042https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.001
        • Rané A
        • Rao P
        • Rao P
        Single-port-access nephrectomy and other laparoscopic urologic procedures using a novel laparoscopic port (R-port).
        Urology. 2008; 72: 260-263https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.01.078
        • Desai MM
        • Rao PP
        • Aron M
        • et al.
        Scarless single port transumbilical nephrectomy and pyeloplasty: first clinical report.
        BJU Int. 2008; 101: 83-88https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07359.x
        • Ponsky LE
        • Cherullo EE
        • Sawyer M
        • Hartke D
        Single access site laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: initial clinical experience.
        J Endourol. 2008; 22: 663-666https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.0427
        • Goel RK
        • Kaouk JH
        Single port access renal cryoablation (SPARC): a new approach.
        Eur Urol. 2008; 53: 1204-1209https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.03.003
        • Kaouk JH
        • Goel RK
        • Haber GP
        • Crouzet S
        • Desai MM
        • Gill IS
        Single-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
        Urology. 2008; 72: 1190-1193https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.06.010
        • Patel HD
        • Mullins JK
        • Pierorazio PM
        • Hyams ES
        • Allaf ME
        Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery of the kidney: an initial experience.
        Can J Urol. 2011; 18: 5745-5750
        • Bertolo R
        • Garisto J
        • Gettman M
        • Kaouk J
        Novel system for robotic single-port surgery: feasibility and state of the art in urology.
        Eur Urol Focus. 2018; 4: 669-673https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.06.004
        • Kaouk J
        • Bertolo R
        • Eltemamy M
        • Garisto J
        Single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: first clinical experience using the SP surgical system.
        Urology. 2019; 124: 309https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.10.025
        • Agarwal DK
        • Sharma V
        • Toussi A
        • et al.
        Initial experience with da Vinci single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomies.
        Eur Urol. 2019; 77: 373-379https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.04.001
        • Dobbs RW
        • Halgrimson WR
        • Talamini S
        • Vigneswaran HT
        • Wilson JO
        • Crivellaro S
        Single-port robotic surgery: the next generation of minimally invasive urology.
        World J Urol. 2019; 38: 897-905https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02898-1
        • Kaouk J
        • Valero R
        • Sawczyn G
        • Garisto J
        Extraperitoneal single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: initial experience and description of technique.
        BJU Int. 2019; 125: 182-189https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14885
        • Steinberg RL
        • Johnson BA
        • Meskawi M
        • Gettman MT
        • Cadeddu JA
        Magnet-assisted robotic prostatectomy using the da Vinci sp robot: an initial case series.
        J Endourol. 2019; 33: 829-834https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0263
        • Ng CF
        • Teoh JYC
        • Chiu PKF
        • et al.
        Robot-assisted single-port radical prostatectomy: a phase 1 clinical study.
        Int J Urol. 2019; 26: 878-883https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14044
        • Kaouk J
        • Garisto J
        • Bertolo R
        Robotic urologic surgical interventions performed with the single port dedicated platform: first clinical investigation.
        Eur Urol. 2019; 75: 684-691https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.044
        • Kaouk J
        • Aminsharifi A
        • Wilson CA
        • et al.
        Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal single-port robotic radical prostatectomy: a comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes.
        J Urol. 2019; 203: 1135-1140https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000000700
        • Vigneswaran HT
        • Schwarzman LS
        • Francavilla S
        • Abern MR
        • Crivellaro S
        A comparison of perioperative outcomes between single-port and multiport robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.
        Eur Urol. 2020; 77: 671-674https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.031
        • Patel HD
        • Ball MW
        • Cohen JE
        • Kates M
        • Pierorazio PM
        • Allaf ME
        Morbidity of urologic surgical procedures: an analysis of rates, risk factors, and outcomes.
        Urology. 2015; 85: 552-559https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.11.034
        • Patel HD
        • Faisal FA
        • Patel ND
        • et al.
        Effect of a prospective opioid reduction intervention on opioid prescribing and use after radical prostatectomy: results of the Opioid Reduction Intervention for Open, Laparoscopic, and Endoscopic Surgery (ORIOLES) initiative.
        BJU Int. 2020; 125: 426-432https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14932