Chavali Jaya S, Pedraza Adriana M, Soputro Nicolas A, Ramos-Carpinteyro Roxana, Mikesell Carter D, Kaouk Jihad
Glickman Urological & Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Q10, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
Cancers (Basel). 2024 Aug 28;16(17):2994. doi: 10.3390/cancers16172994.
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. 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%). 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 ( < 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 ( = 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. 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.
自从专用单孔(SP)机器人平台问世以来,关于其与成熟的多孔(MP)系统相比的优势一直存在争论。本研究的目的是在一家大型三级中心比较SP腹膜外机器人根治性前列腺切除术(RARP)与MP经腹RARP方法的围手术期、肿瘤学和功能结果。基于对前瞻性维护的经机构审查委员会(IRB)批准的数据库的回顾性分析,925例患者由同一位经验丰富的机器人外科医生成功实施了RARP手术。基于前列腺癌国际泌尿病理学会(ISUP)分级组、临床分期和术前前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)进行了4:1倾向匹配分析,得到了一个606例患者的队列——SP EP组485例,MP TP组121例。值得注意的是,SP EP方法还包括传统的腹膜外(n = 259,53.4%)和新型经膀胱(TV)方法(n = 226,46.6%)。SP组的总手术时间略长,平均为198.9分钟,而MP组为181.5分钟(P < 0.001)。MP方法无术中并发症,SP方法仅1例。SP EP技术显示出显著优势,包括术中失血减少(SP为125.1 mL,MP为215.9 mL)、住院时间缩短(SP为12.6小时,MP为31.9小时)、出院时阿片类药物使用减少(SP为14.4%,MP为85.1%)以及导尿管拔除时间提前(SP为6天,MP为8天)。从肿瘤学角度来看,两组的手术切缘阳性率相当(P = 0.84)。关于功能结果,两组在6周、3个月和6个月时的平均控尿率和男性性健康量表(SHIM)评分分别相同。SP EP RARP在肿瘤学和功能结果方面表现与MP TP RARP相似。然而,SP EP RARP在缩短总体住院时间、减轻术后疼痛以及减少总体阿片类药物使用、缩短导尿管拔除时间方面具有诸多优势,所有这些都意味着发病率降低,并有助于向门诊手术过渡。