Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Apr;9(2):898-905.
doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.11.05.

Single port robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review

Affiliations
Review

Single port robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review

Andrew Lai et al. Transl Androl Urol. 2020 Apr.

Abstract

Several studies have assessed the safety and feasibility of single port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using different and custom built robotic-assisted technology. In part due to the non-standardized nature of these approaches, single site robotic prostatectomy has not been widely adopted. With the recent approval of the da Vinci (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale CA) Single Port (SP) platform, there has been a renewed interest in single site robotic-assisted prostatectomy and several institutions have begun reporting their initial experiences with this technique. In this systematic review, we sought to assess and summarize the literature regarding patient outcomes for single site robotic-assisted prostatectomy and evaluate its role in surgical treatment of prostate cancer. This systematic review was structured using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies describing the use of any robotic platform, including da Vinci Si, Xi or SP platforms for robotic single-port or single site radical prostatectomy between 2000 and July 15, 2019 were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Studies were excluded if they included combined cases with other organ resection, represented use in a non-clinical setting (such as a cadaveric model), or described results for a simple prostatectomy technique. Data was extracted by two authors with concerns resolved by consensus. Primary outcomes were mean operative times, estimated blood loss (mL), and hospital length of stay (days). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative conversion to open surgery, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Variables of interest included sample size (n), mean age (years), mean prostate size (mL), prostate specific antigen (PSA, ng/mL), Gleason score, clinical and pathological TNM staging [American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC)], lymph nodes (n) and perioperative complications as available. A total of 217 studies were reviewed by title and abstract, with 28 selected for full-text review; ultimately, 12 studies were included, with available data from 145 patients. Primary outcomes and preoperative characteristics varied greatly amongst patients and across studies. One patient (0.7%) required conversion to a multi-port approach and there were no conversions to an open technique. No intraoperative complications were reported, and no Clavien grade III or greater postoperative complications have been described in the initial 81 radical prostatectomies performed with the SP platform. Single Port techniques appear to represent a safe and feasible approach for performing the minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. The current available literature on the single port radical prostatectomy is weak and consists of single center studies with small sample sizes, short-term follow up and limited functional data. More rigorous multi-center trials with standardized metrics for reporting functional outcomes as well as long-term cancer specific survival are necessary to validate these initial studies.

Keywords: Robotic surgery; prostatectomy; single port.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: The series “Robotic-assisted Urologic Surgery” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. Dr. Crivellaro is a consultant for Intuitive Surgical, Inc. The other authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Images of the da Vinci System. (A) Side profile view of the arm; (B) demonstration of instrument articulation. 1, flexible endoscopic camera; 2, needle drivers; 3, Cadiere Forceps.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow chart of study selection.

References

    1. Dobbs RW, Magnan BP, Abhyankar N, et al. Cost effectiveness and robot-assisted urologic surgery: does it make dollars and sense? Minerva Urol Nefrol 2017;69:313-23. - PubMed
    1. Pearce SM, Pariser JJ, Karrison T, et al. Comparison of Perioperative and Early Oncologic Outcomes between Open and Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy in a Contemporary Population Based Cohort. J Urol 2016;196:76-81. 10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.105 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique. J Urol 2000;163:1643-9. 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67512-X - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vickers AJ, Savage CJ, Hruza M, et al. The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:475-80. 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70079-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:418-30. 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.046 - DOI - PubMed