A comparison of perioperative outcomes between extraperitoneal robotic single-port and multiport radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci Si Surgical System.
- Author:
Guan-Qun JU
1
;
Zhi-Jun WANG
1
;
Jia-Zi SHI
1
;
Zong-Qin ZHANG
1
;
Zhen-Jie WU
1
;
Lei YIN
1
;
Bing LIU
1
;
Lin-Hui WANG
1
;
Dong-Liang XU
1
Author Information
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords: extraperitoneal approach; minimally invasive surgery; prostate cancer; robotic radical prostatectomy; single-port
- MeSH: Aged; Blood Loss, Surgical/statistics & numerical data*; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Outcome Assessment, Health Care/statistics & numerical data*; Perioperative Medicine/statistics & numerical data*; Prostatectomy/methods*; Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery*; Quality Assurance, Health Care/statistics & numerical data*; Robotic Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data*
- From: Asian Journal of Andrology 2021;23(6):640-647
- CountryChina
- Language:English
- 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.
