Comparing the safety and efficacy of single-port versus multi-port robotic-assisted techniques in urological surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Li, Yunxiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04711-6

2024-01-11

World Journal of Urology

Abstract:Comparing the safety and efficacy of single-port (SP) versus multi-port (MP) robotic-assisted techniques in urological surgeries.

urology & nephrology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Perioperative and functional outcomes of single-port versus multi-port robotic-assisted radical cystectomy: evidence-based on controlled studies

Li Wang,Si-Yu Chen,Jian-Wei Yang,Kun-Peng Li,Shun Wan,Xiao-Ran Li,Li Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-02094-3

2024-09-23

Abstract:To compare perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) using a single-port (SP) or multi-port (MP) robotic platform. We conducted a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases until June 2024. For a combined analysis of the data using random effects, Review Manager 5.4 was employed. To compare continuous and categorical variables, the weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) were employed, respectively. Three original studies were included, comprising a total of 170 patients (SP-RARC: 73 versus MP-RARC: 93).Recovery of bowel function was faster in SP-RARC (WMD -1.02 days, 95% CI - 1.33 to - 0.17; p < 0.001), and lymph-node yield was lower than in MP-RARC patients (WMD - 6.32, 95% CI - 8.90 to - 3.75; p < 0.00001).There were no significant differences between the SP-RARC and MP-RARC groups in terms of other perioperative outcomes such as surgery duration, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, major complication rate, positive surgical margin rate, readmission rate, and recurrence rate. The SP robot offers a safe alternative surgical approach to RARC, providing similar postoperative outcomes compared to the MP robot. The SP system remains an attractive option that will require longer follow-up and cohort validation in the future.
Single-Port Versus Multiport Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Meta-Analysis

Tuan Thanh Nguyen,Xuan Thai Ngo,Nguyen x Duong,Ryan W Dobbs,Huy Gia Vuong,David-Dan Nguyen,Jacob Basilius,Narmina Khanmammadova,Dinno Francis Andaya Mendiola,Tien-Dat Hoang,Dang Nhat Minh Pham,An Nguyen,Tuyet Mai Tran Thi,Sohrab Ali,Mohammed Shahait,David I Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2023.0505

2024-01-09

Journal of Endourology

Abstract:Background Several centers have reported their experience with single-port robotic partial nephrectomy (SP-RAPN) however, it is uncertain if utilization of this platform represents an improvement in outcomes as 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 PRISMA 2020 and 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, eight studies were included in the final analysis, comprising a total cohort of 1,007 cases of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (453 SP-RAPN cases and 554 MP-RAPN cases). Compared to MP-RARP, 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 eGFR at 6 months (MD = 4.9 mL/min, 95% CI 0.2 to 9.7, p=0.04). There were no significant differences in other outcomes between the two approaches, including the intraoperative complication, minor postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo I-II), major postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo III-V), conversion to radical nephrectomy, pain score at day #1, pain score on discharge, morphine milligram equivalent (MME) usage, hospital stay, positive surgical margins and postoperative eGFR. Conclusions Initial studies have demonstrated that SP-RAPN is a safe and feasible approach to performing partial nephrectomy, albeit with inferior outcomes for ischemia time and blood transfusion rates.

urology & nephrology
A comparison of perioperative outcomes between extraperitoneal robotic single-port and multiport radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci Si Surgical System

Guan-Qun Ju,Zhi-Jun Wang,Jia-Zi Shi,Zong-Qin Zhang,Zhen-Jie Wu,Lei Yin,Bing Liu,Lin-Hui Wang,Dong-Liang Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/aja.aja_50_21

Abstract:To evaluate outcomes between extraperitoneal robotic single-port radical prostatectomy (epR-spRP) and extraperitoneal robotic multiport radical prostatectomy (epR-mpRP) performed with the da Vinci Si Surgical System, comparison was performed between 30 single-port (SP group) and 26 multiport (MP group) cases. Comparisons included operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), hospital stay, peritoneal violation, pain scores, scar satisfaction, continence, and erectile function. The median operation time and EBL were not different between the two groups. In the SP group, the median operation time of the first 10 patients was obviously longer than that of the latter 20 patients (P < 0.001). The median postoperative hospital stay in the SP group was shorter than that in the MP group (P < 0.001). The rate of peritoneal damage in the SP group was less than that in the MP group (P = 0.017). The pain score and overall need for pain medications in the SP group were lower than those in the MP group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.015, respectively). Patients in the SP group were more satisfied with their scars than those in the MP group 3 months postoperatively (P = 0.007). At 3 months, the cancer control, recovery of erectile function, and urinary continence rates were similar between the two groups. It is safe and feasible to perform epR-spRP using the da Vinci Si surgical system. Therefore, epR-spRP can be a treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Although epR-spRP still has a learning curve, it has advantages for postoperative pain and self-assessed cosmesis. In the absence of the single-port robotic surgery platform, we can still provide minimally invasive surgery for patients.
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis Of Short-Term Outcomes

Jiayu Zhou,Chang Xin,Yi-Ping Mou,Xiao-Wu Xu,Miao-Zun Zhang,Yu-Cheng Zhou,Chao Lu,Rong-Gao Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151189

IF: 3.7

2016-01-01

PLoS ONE

Abstract:AIMTo compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).METHODSA literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database up to June 30, 2015 was performed. The following key words were used: pancreas, distal pancreatectomy, pancreatic, laparoscopic, laparoscopy, robotic, and robotic-assisted. Fixed and random effects models were applied. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.RESULTSSeven non-randomized controlled trials involving 568 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.CONCLUSIONRADP is a safe and feasible alternative to LDP with regard to short-term outcomes. Further studies on the long-term outcomes of these surgical techniques are required.Core tipTo date, there is no consensus on whether laparoscopic or robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy is more beneficial to the patient. This is the first meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy. We found that robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.
Effectiveness and safety of single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for treating liver diseases: a meta-analysis

Yun-Bing Wang,Jin Xia,Jian-Ying Zhang,Jian-Ping Gong,Xiao-Mei Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5199-9

Abstract:Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for treating liver diseases. Methods: Several databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies on the use of single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery to treat liver diseases from their inception until March 24, 2016. The primary outcomes were the operative time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, rate of postoperative complications, median length of postoperative stay, recovery time of gastrointestinal function, volume of postoperative drainage, and postoperative drainage time. The study-specific effect sizes and their 95 % confidence interval were all combined to calculate the pooled value by using a random-effects model. Results: A total of nine studies were included, which involved 277 patients. The total and subgroup data were combined by meta-analysis. This meta-analysis showed that single-port and multi-port laparoscopic liver surgery for treating liver diseases did not differ in terms of operative time (P = 0.48), rate of postoperative complications (P = 0.56), median length of postoperative stay (P = 0.80), and recovery time of gastrointestinal function (P = 0.54). For liver diseases, the single-port group exhibited a lower volume of intraoperative blood loss than that presented by the multi-port group (P = 0.0006). In the hepatic resection subgroup, a lower volume of intraoperative blood loss was noted in the single-port group (P < 0.0001). By contrast, in the hepatic cyst subgroup, the single-port group showed a higher volume of intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.02) but a shorter median length of postoperative stay (P = 0.02). The findings of the potential subgroup analysis in these outcomes were consistent with the total data. Conclusion: Compared with multi-port laparoscopic surgery, the single-port method showed comparable effectiveness and safety for the treatment of liver diseases in terms of current evidence.
Comparison of outcomes between single-port and multiport retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy

Kennedy E Okhawere,Alp Tuna Beksac,Ethan Ferguson,Laura Zuluaga,Indu Saini,Burak Ucpinar,Ruben C Sauer,Mutahar Ahmed,Reza Mehrazin,Ronney Abaza,Daniel D Eun,Akshay Bhandari,Michael D Stifelman,Jihad Kaouk,Simone Crivellaro,Ketan K Badani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.09.017

Abstract:Introduction: Single-port (SP) robotic surgical system performs well in small anatomical spaces, which makes it suitable for retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). However, there is limited evidence comparing the safety and feasibility of SP RPN to multiport (MP) RPN. To address this gap in evidence, we sought to analyze and compare the safety of retroperitoneal RPN between SP and MP approaches. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC) and a multicenter database of patients who underwent retroperitoneal RPN using either SP or MP between 2017 and 2023. Baseline, perioperative, and postoperative data were compared using t-tests, Mann-Whitney U test, χ2 test, and Fisher exact test. Multivariable analyses were conducted using robust and Poisson regressions. Results: A total of 286 patients (SP RPN, n = 86 [30%]; MP RPN, n = 200 [70%]) underwent retroperitoneal RPN. R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score and tumor location were significantly different between the 2 groups. Notably, the ischemia time was significantly shorter in the MP group (16 vs. SP, 22 minutes, P < 0.001). Adjusting for baseline characteristics, the ischemia time was approximately 7.89 minutes longer for patients in the SP group compared to the MP group, on average (95% CI: 5.87, 9.92; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in operative time, EBL, blood transfusion, conversion rates, LOS, PSM, and overall 30-day postoperative complications between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Our study shows that retroperitoneal SP and MP RPN have comparable perioperative and postoperative outcomes, except for the longer ischemia time in the SP platform. SP RPN is a safe and viable alternative; however, further research is needed to explore its potential benefits, cost-effectiveness, and long-term oncologic outcomes.
Single port robot-assisted radical and simple prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Antonio Franco,Francesco Ditonno,Celeste Manfredi,Antony A. Pellegrino,Leslie Claire Licari,Eugenio Bologna,Carol Feng,Alessandro Antonelli,Marco De Sio,Cosimo De Nunzio,Francesco Porpiglia,Edward E. Cherullo,Jihad Kaouk,Simone Crivellaro,Riccardo Autorino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-024-00787-2

2024-01-23

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases

Abstract: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.

oncology,urology & nephrology
Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Xiaowei Wang,Gaoyang Cao,Weifang Mao,Weifeng Lao,Chao He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_533_18

2020-01-01

Abstract:This study aimed to compare clinical and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.We searched PubMed/Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Yahoo, and Google Scholar databases for relevant articles published up to 2017. Studies based on comparability between robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer were designated. Clinical outcomes included operative time, conversion to open surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), bowel function recovery time, length of hospital stay (LOS), anastomosis leak, and postoperative complications. Oncological outcomes comprised the number of lymph nodes extracted, the positive circumferential margin (PCRM), and the distal resection margin (DRM).Twenty studies were designated totaling 5496 patients, comprising a robot-assisted surgery patient group (n = 2168, 39.4%) and a laparoscopic surgery patient group (n = 3328, 60.6%). The robot-assisted surgery group was associated with longer operative time (odds ratio [OR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.14, 0.82), lower conversion to open surgery rate (OR 0.55, 95% CI; 0.44, 0.69), shorter LOS (OR - 0.15, 95% CI; -0.30, 0.00), faster bowel function recovery (OR - 0.38, 95% CI; -0.74, -0.02), and lower postoperative complications (OR 0.79, 95% CI; 0.65, 0.97). EBL, anastomosis leak rate, and oncological outcomes including the number of lymph nodes extracted, the DRM, and the PCRM showed no significant differences between groups.Robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer showed longer operative time, lower conversion, faster bowel function recovery rates, and shorter hospital stay, and similar oncological outcomes compared to laparoscopic surgery.
Single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Theethawat Thanawiboonchai,Amanda Cyntia Lima Fonseca Rodrigues,Alba Zevallos,Fatemeh Shojaeian,Brett Colton Parker,Alisa Mae Coker,Hao Deng,Gina Lynn Adrales

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11321-9

2024-10-18

Surgical Endoscopy

Abstract:The evolution of minimally invasive surgery has transformed inguinal hernia repair (IHR). The innovative single-port technique reduces the number of surgical incisions. However, the benefits of single-port IHR remain controversial. Our systematic review and network meta-analysis assess the efficacy and clinical outcomes of single-port laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (SPL-IHR), multi-port laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (MPL-IHR), single-port robotic inguinal hernia repair (SPR-IHR), and multi-port robotic inguinal hernia repair (MPR-IHR).

surgery
Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies reporting early outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy.

Kaiwen Li,Tianxin Lin,Xinxiang Fan,Kewei Xu,Liangkuan Bi,Yu Duan,Yu Zhou,Min Yu,Jielin Li,Jian Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.11.007

IF: 13.608

2013-01-01

Cancer Treatment Reviews

Abstract:Background: Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is increasingly being used in the management of bladder cancer. Studies comparing RARC and open radical cystectomy (ORC) have reported conflicting results. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on the efficacy and advantages of RARC compared with ORC.
Single-port vs multi-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: A single center propensity score-matched analysis

Leslie Claire Licari,Eugenio Bologna,Antonio Franco,Francesco Ditonno,Celeste Manfredi,Jonathan Huang,Kalyan Latchamsetty,Christopher Coogan,Ephrem O. Olweny,Edward E. Cherullo,Alexander K. Chow,Srinivas Vourganti,Riccardo Autorino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108011

IF: 4.037

2024-02-16

European Journal of Surgical Oncology

Abstract:Introduction and objectives The aim of the study is to compare key outcomes of Single-Port (SP) and Multi-Port (MP) robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on our prospectively collected database of patients who underwent SP-RAPN or MP-RAPN at our institution from January 2021 to August 2023. To adjust for potential baseline pre-operative confounders, a 1:1 propensity-score matching analysis (PSMa) was performed. The primary endpoint was to compare perioperative outcomes between the two groups. The secondary endpoint was to compare the achievement of the "Trifecta" outcome (defined as negative surgical margins, absence of high-grade complications and change in eGFR values (ΔeGFR) < 10% at 6 months follow-up) in the matched cohort. Results After PSMa, 30 SP cases were matched 1:1 to 30 MP cases. In the matched cohort, there were no significant differences between SP and MP approaches in operative time, estimated blood loss, ischemia time, transfusions rate, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and positive surgical margin rates. Patients who underwent SP-RAPN had a shorter median length of stay [25 (IQR:24.0–34.5) vs 34 (IQR:30.2–48.0) hours, p < 0.003]. The Trifecta outcome was achieved in 16 (57%) of SP patients and 17 (63%) of MP patients (p = 0.8). Conclusions SP-RAPN can be safely implemented in a Center with an established MP-RAPN program. Despite being early in the SP-RAPN experience, key surgical outcomes are not compromised. While offering comparable perioperative and short-term functional outcomes, SP-RAPN can translate into faster recovery and shorter LOS, paving the way for outpatient robotic surgery.

oncology,surgery
Single port robot‐assisted pyeloplasty: An early comparative outcomes analysis

Francesco Ditonno,Antonio Franco,Celeste Manfredi,Carol L. Feng,Eugenio Bologna,Leslie Claire Licari,Ephrem O. Olweny,Srinivas Vourganti,Edward E. Cherullo,Alexander K. Chow,Riccardo Autorino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2622

2024-02-01

Abstract:Abstract Background The treatment paradigm for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) has shifted towards minimally invasive pyeloplasty. A comparison Single Port (SP) and Multi Port (MP) robot‐assisted pyeloplasty (RAP) was performed. Methods Data from consecutive patients undergoing SP RAP or MP RAP between January 2021 and September 2023 were collected and analysed. Co‐primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS), and narcotic dose. The choice of the robotic system depended on the surgeon's preference and availability of a specific robotic platform. Results A total of 10 SP RAPs and 12 MP RAPs were identified. SP RAP patients were significantly younger [23 years (20–34)] than MP RAP [42 years (35.5–47.5), p < 0.01]. No difference in terms of OT ( p = 0.6), LOS ( p = 0.1), DVPRS ( p = 0.2) and narcotic dose ( p = 0.1) between the two groups was observed. Conclusions SP RAP can be implemented without compromising surgical outcomes and potentially offering some clinical advantages.

surgery
Outpatient Robotic Urological Surgery: An Evidence-based Analysis

Angelo Orsini,Francesco Lasorsa,Gabriele Bignante,Michele Marchioni,Luigi Schips,Giuseppe Lucarelli,Francesco Porpiglia,Jihad H Kaouk,Simone Crivellaro,Riccardo Autorino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2024.10.003

2024-10-19

Abstract:Background and objective: One of the primary advantages of minimally invasive surgery is the shorter hospitalization time, which can potentially allow "outpatient" (OP) procedures. The recent advent of single-port (SP) robotics has further fueled the debate on this topic. We sought to provide an evidence-based analysis of the safety, feasibility, and advantages of robotic urological surgery in the OP setting. Methods: A literature search in PubMed was conducted in June 2024 to identify studies on the feasibility and safety of OP robotic urological surgery. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria and the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome model were used to select retrospective and prospective studies. Data collected included patient characteristics, operative outcomes, same-day discharge (SDD), and complication and readmission rates. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data analysis and synthesis were performed using Review Manager and GraphPad Prism. Key findings and limitations: For 3291 patients in noncomparative studies, we found SDD rates of 46.17% for multiport (MP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), 77.35% for SP-RARP, 93.1% for robot-assisted radical or partial nephrectomy, and 93.3% for adrenalectomy. Among comparative studies involving 4130 patients, we found that the OP setting is feasible and safe. Comparison of overall complications between OP and inpatients (IP) settings revealed a relative risk (RR) of 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-0.91; p = 0.01) favoring OP. The risk of readmission was lower risk for OP than for IP surgery (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.85; p = 0.008). Comparison of MP-RARP and SP-RARP revealed that OP protocols are more easily achievable with SP-RARP (44.20% vs 79.59%; p < 0.001). Conclusions and clinical implications: OP robotic urological surgery is feasible and safe in selected patients and can enhance satisfaction and reduce costs. SP robotics could promote wider adoption of SDD protocols. Strict case selection minimizes complications. Differences in health care systems should be considered in future evaluations. Patient summary: We examined the feasibility and safety of same-day hospital discharge after robot-assisted surgery for urology operations. We found that this option can be safely offered and may be even more viable if the use of robots allowing surgery through a single keyhole incision becomes more widespread.
Single-Port Extraperitoneal vs. Multiport Transperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Jaya S. Chavali,Adriana M. Pedraza,Nicolas A. Soputro,Roxana Ramos-Carpinteyro,Carter D. Mikesell,Jihad Kaouk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16172994

2024-08-30

Cancers

Abstract:(1) Background: Since the introduction of the purpose-built Single Port (SP) robotic platform, there has been an ongoing debate regarding its advantages compared to the established multi-port (MP) system. The goal of this present study is to compare the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of SP Extraperitoneal robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus that of MP Transperitoneal RARP approach at a high-volume tertiary center. (2) Methods: Based on a retrospective review of the prospectively maintained IRB-approved database, 925 patients successfully underwent RARP by a single experienced robotic surgeon. A 4:1 propensity-matched analysis based on the baseline prostate cancer International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group, clinical stage, and preoperative Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) was performed, which yielded a cohort of 606 patients—485 in the SP EP and 121 in the MP TP approaches. Of note, the SP EP approach also included the traditional Extraperitoneal (n = 259, 53.4%) and the novel Transvesical (TV) approaches (n = 226, 46.6%). (3) Results: The overall operative time was slightly longer in the SP cohort, with a mean of 198.9 min compared to 181.5 min for the MP group (p < 0.001). There were no intraoperative complications with the MP approach and only one during the SP approach. The SP EP technique demonstrated significant benefits, encompassing reduced intraoperative blood loss (SP 125.1 vs. MP 215.9 mL), shorter length of hospital stay (SP 12.6 vs. MP 31.9 h), reduced opioid use at the time of discharge (SP 14.4% vs. MP 85.1%), and an earlier Foley catheter removal (SP 6 vs. MP 8 days). From an oncological perspective, the rate of positive surgical margins remained comparable across both groups (p = 0.84). Regarding functional outcomes, the mean continence rates and Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) scores were identical between the two groups at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months respectively. (4) Conclusion: SP EP RARP demonstrates similar performance to MP TP RARP in terms of oncologic and functional outcomes. However, SP EP RARP offers several advantages in reducing the overall hospital stay, decreasing postoperative pain and hence the overall opioid use, as well as shortening the time to catheter removal, all of which translates to reduced morbidity and facilitates the transition to outpatient surgery.

oncology
Postoperative Outcomes and Analgesic Requirements of Single-Port vs Multi-Port Robotic Assisted Radical Cystectomy

Andrew M. Fang,Omar Hayek,John Michael Kaylor,Charles C. Peyton,James E. Ferguson,Jeffrey W. Nix,Soroush Rais-Bahrami,Andrew Fang,John Kaylor,Charles Peyton,Jeffrey Nix

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2023.0553

2024-03-12

Journal of Endourology

Abstract:Objective: To compare outcomes in patients undergoing robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with urinary diversion for bladder cancer with either the single-port (SP) or multiport (MP) robotic platform. Methods: All patients who underwent SP and MP RARC at our institution between January 2018 and January 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. Postoperative analgesia was administered by a departmentwide narcotic stewardship protocol, and inpatient and outpatient narcotic use was tracked. The available preoperative clinical, operative, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed using t-test, chi-square, and Fischer exact statistical measures. Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank testing was used to determine the freedom from high-grade (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) postoperative complications stratified by SP or MP robotic use. Results: Overall, 96 patients underwent RARC with urinary diversion at our institution, with 49 MP and 47 SP procedures performed. Preoperative clinical parameters including age, body mass index, prior abdominal surgery, and use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were similar between the two groups. Patients undergoing SP RARC had a shorter operative time (386.0 ± 90.9 minutes vs 453.6 ± 94.8 minutes, p < 0.01) and faster return of bowel function (3.4 ± 1.4 days vs 4.5 ± 2.2 days, p < 0.01). However, both cohorts had similar length of hospitalization, postoperative narcotic use, pathologic staging, and rate of positive surgical margin. Within 3 months postoperatively, both cohorts had a similar high-grade complication, hospital readmission, and cancer recurrence rate. Conclusions: The SP robot allows a safe alternative surgical approach for RARC and offers similar postoperative outcomes compared to the MP robot.

urology & nephrology
The perioperative outcomes of uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgeries-a systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical cohort studies and case reports

Ashley R Wilson-Smith,Christian J Wilson-Smith,Naomi Anning,Benjamin Muston,Aditya Eranki,Michael L Williams,Diego Gonzalez-Rivas,Tristan D Yan,James Ephraums

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/acs-2023-urats-37

2023-03-31

Abstract:Background: Early results have illustrated the multiportal robotic approach to be safe and oncologically efficacious in the treatment of thoracic malignancies. Industry leaders have improved upon the lessons learned during the early multiportal studies and have now come to establish the feasibility of the biportal, and subsequently the uniportal robotic-assisted approach, all in an effort to offer patients equivalent or better outcomes with less surgical trauma. No current, coherent body of evidence currently exists outlining the early-term outcomes of patients undergoing uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to clarify the early-phase outcomes of these patients. Methods: An electronic search of four databases was performed to identify relevant studies outlining the immediate post-operative outcomes of patients undergoing uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgeries. The primary endpoint was defined as technical success (i.e., no conversion to secondary robotic, video-assisted thoracoscopic, or open approaches). Secondary endpoints of interest included post-operative outcomes and complication rates. A meta-analysis using a random effects model of proportions or means was applied, as appropriate. Results: The search strategy ultimately yielded 12 relevant studies for inclusion. A total of 240 patients (52% male) split across cohort studies and case reports were identified. The mean age of the two groups was 59.7±3.0 and 58.1±6.8 years, respectively. The mean operative time was 133.8±38.2 and 150.0±52.2 minutes, respectively. Length of hospital stay was 4.4±1.6 and 4.3±1.1 days, respectively. The mean blood loss was 80.0±25.1 mL The majority of identified procedures were lobectomies, segmentectomies, and wedge resections, though complex sleeve resections and anterior mediastinal mass resections were also completed. Cumulative technical success was 99.9%. Conclusions: The uniportal robotic-assisted approach, when completed in expert hands, has been illustrated to have exceedingly low rates of conversion to secondary procedures, along with short length of stay (LOS), minimal blood loss, and short procedural times (variable depending on operation type). Current evidence on the feasibility of this approach will be bolstered by upcoming multi-institutional series.
Robot-assisted Single-port Radical Prostatectomy with the SHURUI SP and da Vinci SP Platforms: Comparison of the Technology, Intraoperative Performance, and Outcomes

Zhenjie Wu,Zheng Wang,Marcio Covas Moschovas,Riccardo Bertolo,Riccardo Campi,Juan Gómez Rivas,Yong Wei,Dan Xia,Bin Xu,Qingyi Zhu,Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh,Giorgio Gandaglia,Daniele Amparore,Francesco Porpiglia,Vipul Patel,Linhui Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2024.07.107

2024-07-17

Abstract: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 Versus Multi-Port Robotic Retroperitoneal Partial Nephrectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison

Seokhwan Bang,Jiwoong Yu,Hoyoung Bae,Dongho Shin,Yong Hyun Park,Hyuk Jin Cho,U-Syn Ha,Ji Youl Lee,Sung-Hoo Hong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2024.0493

2024-10-24

Abstract:Objective: To compare the surgical results of retroperitoneal (RP) robot partial nephrectomy (PNx) using either a single-port robot (SP) or a multi-port robot (MP). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all RP robotic PNx performed at a single institution from September 2021-when the SP robot was introduced to the institution-through April 2023. In total, 125 patients underwent the surgery; 81 patients were treated with surgery using a MP robot whereas 44 patients were treated with surgery using a SP. All MP surgeries were performed with da Vinci Xi (Intuitive, Sunnyvale, California, USA), while all SP surgeries were performed with da Vinci SP (Intuitive, Sunnyvale, California, USA). We performed a propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis of these 125 patients. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups after PSM. In terms of operation time, that for MP was 103.68 ± 21.89 minutes whereas that for SP was 95.43 ± 32.22 minutes (p-value = 0.164). Meanwhile, in terms of console time, that for MP was 70.95 ± 21.92 minutes whereas that for SP was 64.14 ± 32.06 minutes (p-value = 0.248). In terms of estimated blood loss was 90.91 ± 91.06 mL in MP and 92.27 ± 104.30 mL in SP (p-value = 0.948). Lastly, there was a statistically significant difference in warm ischemic time, as it was 17.18 ± 6.56 minutes in MP and 13.82 ± 4.59 in SP (p-value = 0.007). There were no statistically significant differences between MP and SP in any other surgical outcomes. Conclusions: SP robot RP PNx demonstrated comparable outcomes to those achieve using MP procedures. This means SP robot RP PNx can be considered a preferable and more convenient surgical approach than conventional methods, particularly when dealing with small renal masses located in the posterior side of the kidney.
Comparison of active versus passive robotic-endoscope-holder-assisted unisurgeon uniportal thoracoscopic surgery in terms of surgical efficacy and patient safety

Yi-Yu Lin,Ming-Ju Hsieh,Ching-Yang Wu,Lan-Yan Yang,Yu-Bin Pan,Ching-Feng Wu,Diego Gonzalez-Rivas,Yin-Kai Chao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-23-19

2023-07-30

Journal of Thoracic Disease

Abstract:Keywords: Unisurgeon; uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (uniportal VATS); robotic endoscope holder

respiratory system
Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted cholecystectomy: a systematic review

Rivfka Shenoy,Michael A Mederos,Linda Ye,Selene S Mak,Meron M Begashaw,Marika S Booth,Paul G Shekelle,Mark Wilson,William Gunnar,Melinda Maggard-Gibbons,Mark D Girgis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01673-x

2021-04-23

Abstract:Background: Rapid adoption of robotic-assisted general surgery procedures, particularly for cholecystectomy, continues while questions remain about its benefits and utility. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of robot-assisted cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease as compared with the laparoscopic approach. Methods: A literature search was performed from January 2010 to March 2020, and a narrative analysis was performed as studies were heterogeneous. Results: Of 887 articles screened, 44 met the inclusion criteria (range 20-735,537 patients). Four were randomized controlled trials, and four used propensity-matching. There were variable comparisons between operative techniques with only 19 out of 44 studies comparing techniques using the same number of ports. Operating room time was longer for the robot-assisted technique in the majority of studies (range 11-55 min for 22 studies, p < 0.05; 15 studies showed no difference; two studies showed shorter laparoscopic times), while conversion rates and intraoperative complications were not different. No differences were detected for the length of stay, surgical site infection, or readmissions. Across studies comparing single-port robot-assisted to multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, there was a higher rate of incisional hernia; however, no differences were noted when comparing single-port robot-assisted to single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Conclusions: Clinical outcomes were similar for benign, elective gallbladder disease for robot-assisted compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Overall, the rates of complications were low. More high-quality studies are needed as the robot-assisted technique expands to more complex gallbladder disease, where its utility may prove increasingly beneficial. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020156945.

Comparing the safety and efficacy of single-port versus multi-port robotic-assisted techniques in urological surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Perioperative and functional outcomes of single-port versus multi-port robotic-assisted radical cystectomy: evidence-based on controlled studies

Single-Port Versus Multiport Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Meta-Analysis

A comparison of perioperative outcomes between extraperitoneal robotic single-port and multiport radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci Si Surgical System

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis Of Short-Term Outcomes

Effectiveness and safety of single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for treating liver diseases: a meta-analysis

Comparison of outcomes between single-port and multiport retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy

Single port robot-assisted radical and simple prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies reporting early outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy.

Single-port vs multi-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: A single center propensity score-matched analysis

Single port robot‐assisted pyeloplasty: An early comparative outcomes analysis

Outpatient Robotic Urological Surgery: An Evidence-based Analysis

Single-Port Extraperitoneal vs. Multiport Transperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Postoperative Outcomes and Analgesic Requirements of Single-Port vs Multi-Port Robotic Assisted Radical Cystectomy

The perioperative outcomes of uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgeries-a systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical cohort studies and case reports

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

Single-Port Versus Multi-Port Robotic Retroperitoneal Partial Nephrectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison

Comparison of active versus passive robotic-endoscope-holder-assisted unisurgeon uniportal thoracoscopic surgery in terms of surgical efficacy and patient safety

Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted cholecystectomy: a systematic review