Efficacy and safety of single port robotic radical prostatectomy and multiport robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Original Article

Efficacy and safety of single port robotic radical prostatectomy and multiport robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yong Wei1,2, Qianying Ji1, Wenren Zuo1, Shiyan Wang1, Xinyi Wang1, Qingyi Zhu1,2^

1Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China; 2Department of Urology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China

Contributions: (I) Conception and design: Q Zhu; (II) Administrative support: X Wang; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: S Wang; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: W Zuo; (V) Data analysis and interpretation: Q Ji, Y Wei; (VI) Manuscript writing: All authors; (VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors.

^ORCID: 0000-0002-6353-3563.

Correspondence to: Qingyi Zhu. Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, 155 Hanzhong Road, Nanjing 210029, China. Email: drzhuqingy@163.com.

Background: The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of single port (SP) robot radical prostatectomy and multiport (MP) robot radical prostatectomy.

Methods: Using the China National Knowledge database, EMBASE, Cochrane library, PubMed, and other databases to obtain relevant research, SP robot radical prostatectomy and MP robot radical prostatectomy were comprehensively evaluated. The software used to evaluate the impact of the results in the selected articles was Review Manager 5.2. Deviation analysis, forest plot analysis, and sensitivity analysis were carried out for the collected data.

Results: A total of 7 related studies that met the criteria were finally included. The data showed that the operation time of MP in the control group was significantly longer than that in the SP group [mean difference (MD) =−13.29; 95% confidence interval (CI): (−17.35, −9.23); P<0.00001; I2=50%]. The duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay for SP surgery was shorter than that for MP surgery [MD =−18.30; 95% CI: (−29.17, −7.42); P=0.0010; I2=94%]. The blood loss of SP surgery was less than that of MP surgery [MD =−15.54; 95% CI: (−28.37, −2.71); the total effective rate was 0.02; I2=0%]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between SP and MP surgery [risk ratio (RR) =0.95; 95% CI: (0.55, 1.63); P=0.85; I2=0%]. At the same time, the sensitivity analysis and funnel plot showed that this study was robust and publication bias was limited.

Discussion: Our results show that SP robotic radical prostatectomy is superior to MP robotic radical prostatectomy in terms of efficacy and safety. SP robot radical prostatectomy is worthy of wide promotion.

Keywords: Single port robotic radical prostatectomy (SP robotic radical prostatectomy); multiport robotic radical prostatectomy (MP robotic radical prostatectomy); meta-analysis

Submitted Jul 29, 2021. Accepted for publication Nov 29, 2021.

doi: 10.21037/tau-21-850

Introduction

Radical prostatectomy is an effective treatment for patients with prostate cancer (1,2). At present, it provides the best long-term cancer control for patients with localized prostate cancer (3,4). In recent years, robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has become a common choice for the treatment of localized prostate cancer (5,6). Many studies have shown that RALP has the advantages of reducing blood loss, reducing perioperative complications, shortening hospital stay, and producing a good tumor prognosis (7,8).

Urologists have long accepted the use of robotic surgery, from the earliest robot-guided transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) tested in the 1980s, to various iterations of the Da Vinci multiport (MP) system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) at the London Guy’s Hospital (9,10). These two systems have been widely used in the fields of adult and pediatric urology (11,12). Single port (SP) robotic radical prostatectomy is a new technology which uses a robotic trocar and a flexible multi-joint instrument, while the previous Da Vinci model used multiple trocars and rigid laparoscopic instruments with joint wrists (13,14). The SP platform was approved by the FDA for urology applications in 2018 (15,16). Some case series have demonstrated its application in major urological surgery, including transvesical surgery, ureteral reimplantation, and prostatectomy (17,18). The challenges of adapting to this new platform are poorly understood by surgeons and operating room staff (19-21). Compared with the MP platform, the workload and task domain in the SP platform have increased, indicating that surgeons need more attention and awareness when using SP to perform surgery when learning new functions of the platform. Interestingly, SP reduces the area of frustration. This may reflect the ability of SP to perform operations, such as camera connection function that MP does not have, and improve the visualization of potentially challenging areas, such as during the anatomy of neurovascular bundles (19). In addition, SP makes surgeons more independent and reduces dependence on bedside surgical assistants to help with surgery, contributing to this finding. Although it is more challenging to perform SP tasks, SP cases’ average active console time is shorter than that of MP. The amount of workflow interruption is the same, resulting in a reduction in the total operation time (21,22).

With the progress of the past 20 years, robotic surgery has become the mainstream of urology (22,23). Reducing the size and number of incisions in laparoscopic or robotic surgery has been a secondary objective, which aims to reduce the incidence of adverse events and to provide complex surgery with minimal invasiveness (24-26). Robotic surgery has developed to a single entry point and even beyond the traditional robotic methods (27,28). Previous attempts to apply a robotic surgical platform to single incision surgery, which was not designed for this purpose, have been limited.

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of SP robotic radical prostatectomy and MP robotic radical prostatectomy. We conduct this research to update the topic and used four typical indicators to comprehensively analyze the problem. We present the following article in accordance with the PRISMA reporting checklist (available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-21-850).

Methods

Literature search strategy

We searched for relevant articles published between January 2000 and March 2021. PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE, and China National Knowledge database were searched with the following keywords: (I) single hole robot assisted; (I) multi hole robot assisted; (III) radical prostatectomy. To obtain relevant articles containing two or more words used in the search, we used the “and” Boolean operator to combine these words. Literature retrieval was not limited by publishing language. To obtain data from other relevant publications, we used a manual cross-search to retrieve literature to improve the sensitivity of the search strategy.

Study selection

After preliminary screening, publications meeting the following inclusion criteria were reviewed and included in the study: (I) a comparative study was conducted between SP robot radical prostatectomy and MP robot radical prostatectomy; (II) patients undergoing radical prostatectomy; (III) the effectiveness and safety of SP and MP surgery were evaluated. Publications were excluded according to the following criteria: (I) studies of other diseases except for bladder surgery, ureteral reimplantation, and prostatectomy; (II) patients underwent operations other than bladder surgery, ureteral reimplantation, and prostatectomy; (III) lack of texts available to analyze data.

Data extraction and quality assessment

According to PRISMA guidelines, two researchers independently checked the eligibility of each full-text report. The extracted data of the eligible studies were as follows: the country of origin of the first author, the year of publication, and the age and number of patients, among others. The methodological quality of the included publications was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

Statistical analysis

We used Review Manager (version 5.2, Cochrane Collaboration, 2011) to evaluate the impact of the results in the articles and conduct the heterogeneity test. The mean difference (MD) was used for continuous variables, and risk ratio (RR) was used for discontinuous variables. Heterogeneity between studies was measured using I2 statistics (a quantitative measure of inconsistencies between research data). The results were considered as low heterogeneity with I2 25% to 50%, results were considered to be moderately heterogeneous with I2 50% to 75%, and I2>75% indicated that the results were highly heterogeneous. If I2>50%, one study per round was omitted through sensitivity analysis by removing one most impact article in order to investigate the impact of each study on the pooled analysis and to test the potential source of heterogeneity.

Results

Search process

A total of 292 articles were obtained through electronic retrieval. Of these, 29 papers reached the preliminary standard after careful reading and screening. In the further screening, 22 articles were excluded due to insufficient data, article types, and failure of research design. Finally, 7 papers were included in the analysis (29-35). Figure 1 is a flowchart that reflects the identification, inclusion, and elimination of publications in the search process.

Figure 1 Flowchart of the selection of the included literature.

Characteristics of the included studies

Table 1 summarizes the total number of patients involved in each group and the types of reported studies. The contents include country, year of publication, author, age, sample size, grouping, and recruitment time. A total of 1,711 patients were included in the analysis.

Table 1

Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis

Study Year Type of study Language Country Intervention N Mean age (years) Years of onset
Kishimoto 2016 RCT English Japan SP-RALP 58 67±5.5 December 2012 to November 2015
MP-RALP 7 67.5±5.8
Lenfant 2021 RCT English USA SP-RALP 78 63.9±6.21 December 2018 to November 2019
MP-RALP 97 62±5.8
Lenfant2 2021 RCT English USA SP-RALP 110 53.7±10 December 2019 to November 2020
MP-RALP 100 60.2±5.2
Lenfant3 2021 RCT English USA SP-RALP 26 67±5.7 December 2018 to November 2020
MP-RALP 86 67.5±5.10
Moschovas 2021 RCT English USA SP-RALP 71 59±21.4 December 2019 to November 2020
MP-RALP 875 63±23.7
Talamini 2021 RCT English USA SP-RALP 20 64.4±2.2 December 2018 to November 2019
MP-RALP 20 65.1±1.5
Vigneswaran 2020 RCT English USA SP-RALP 50 63±5.5 December 2018 to November 2019
MP-RALP 113 62±5.8

RCT, randomized control trial; SP, single port; MP, multiport; RALP, robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Results of quality assessment

The risk of bias in patient selection in 7 clinical trials (29-35) was assessed using the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool. One study showed problems with reporting bias, and one study showed problems of other biases. Overall, 2 trials were at risk of bias while the other 5 trials were not (Figures 2,3).

Figure 2 Study quality assessment: risk (red hexagon), high deviation and ambiguous deviation risk (yellow hexagon), low deviation risk (green hexagon).
Figure 3 Quality assessment of the included studies.

Results of the heterogeneity test

Heterogeneity analysis of operation time between SP and MP surgery

A total of 4 studies performed a comparison of the operation time between SP and MP surgery, as presented in Figure 4. The results showed that the operation time of SP was significantly shorter than that of MP [MD =−13.29; 95% confidence interval (CI): (−17.35, −9.23); P<0.00001; I2=50%].

Figure 4 Forest plot of surgical time between the SP and MP groups. SP, single port; MP, multiport; RALP, robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Heterogeneity comparison of the length of stay (h) in the intensive care unit (ICU) between SP and MP surgery

The length of ICU stay between SP and MP surgery was assessed. The heterogeneity of the length of ICU stay between SP and MP surgery is presented in Figure 5. The results showed that the length of ICU stay between SP and MP surgery was significantly different [MD =−18.30; 95% CI: (−29.17, −7.42); P=0.0010; I2=94%], and the hospitalization time of SP was shorter than that of MP (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Forest plot of hospital stay between the SP and MP groups. SP, single port; MP, multiport; RALP, robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Heterogeneity comparison of complications between SP and MP surgery

The heterogeneity of complications was evaluated according to the fixed effects model. Insignificant heterogeneity was observed in these studies. The results showed that there was no difference in the evaluation of complications between the SP group and the MP group [RR =0.95; 95% CI: (0.55, 1.63); P value of total efficacy was 0.85], as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Forest plot of postoperative complications between the SP and MP groups. SP, single port; MP, multiport; RALP, robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Heterogeneity comparison of blood loss (mL) between SP and MP surgery

Blood loss between SP and MP surgery was analyzed. The heterogeneity test results showed that there were differences between SP and MP surgery in the analysis [MD =−15.54; 95% CI: (−28.37, −2.71); the total effective rate was 0.02; I2=0%], and the blood loss of SP was less than that of MP (Figure 7).

Figure 7 Forest plot of blood loss between the SP and MP groups. SP, single port; MP, multiport; RALP, robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Publication bias and sensitivity analysis results

Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the stability of the results. The relative outliers needed to be excluded. The results showed that in the heterogeneity section, the sensitivity of blood loss did not change, but its P value changed from 0.76 to 0.78. The results also showed that the formation of heterogeneity was mainly due to the research of Moschovas et al. (30) in 2021. Moschovas et al. (30) were not included in the forest plot for 2021, as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8 Sensitivity analysis of blood loss between the SP and MP groups. SP, single port; MP, multiport; RALP, robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

A funnel plot was used to analyze blood loss, which included 5 studies. No publication bias was shown, as indicated by the good symmetry of the funnel plot (Figure 9).

Figure 9 Funnel plot.

Discussion

After screening, 7 studies met the inclusion criteria to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SP and MP surgery. The meta-analysis of these studies showed that there were differences in operation time, and the time of SP robot-assisted surgery was shorter than that of MP robot-assisted surgery. The postoperative ICU stay time of patients with MP robot-assisted surgery was longer than that of patients with SP robot-assisted surgery. There was no difference in the complications of SP between the experimental group and the control group. The blood loss of patients with MP robot-assisted surgery was more than that of patients with SP robot-assisted surgery.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer all over the world. RALP has the advantages of less bleeding and faster recovery than open or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and has become the first choice for radical prostatectomy (36-40). The SP laparoscopic technique combined with the transvesical approach is technically feasible in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia or prostate cancer, which has the advantages of small trauma, rapid recovery, and improved urinary control (41-43).

At present, SP robotic radical prostatectomy seems to be a safe and feasible method for prostatectomy, but there is no study which has compared SP-RALP with the MP platform (44-46). Lowres et al. reported (47) a comparison between SP-RALP and MP-RALP patients. The operation time of SP surgery was less than that of MP surgery, and SP surgery could shorten the length of hospital stay. These results are consistent with the results of this meta-analysis. These results suggest that the learning time of SP-RALP is relatively short for surgeons who often operate robotic surgery, which may help to better control pain and shorten hospital stay (48,49).

However, compared with the MP platform, the workload and task domain in the SP platform have increased, indicating that surgeons need more attention and awareness when using SP to perform surgery when learning new functions of the platform. Interestingly, SP reduces the area of frustration (50). This may reflect the ability of SP to perform operations, such as camera connection function that MP does not have, and improve the visualization of potentially challenging areas, such as during the anatomy of neurovascular bundles. In addition, SP makes surgeons more independent and reduces dependence on bedside surgical assistants to help with surgery, contributing to this finding. Although it is more challenging to perform SP tasks, SP cases’ average active console time is shorter than MP. The amount of workflow interruption is the same, resulting in a reduction in the total operation time (51).

Similar to our results, Achard et al. reported (50) that there was no difference in the incidence of complications between SP and MP surgery. SP robotic surgery is designed for robotic urology, which can shorten the operation time and reduce postoperative pain. SP-RALP can be safely used in most urological operations without increasing complications or readmission (51).

In conclusion, the operation time, blood loss, and ICU stay time of SP robot radical prostatectomy were better than those of MP robot radical prostatectomy, but there was no difference in complications between the two. We supported that SP robotic surgery using a robot specially designed for this application is feasible for most common urological surgery and can shorten LOS and reduce postoperative pain. Daytime surgery can safely use most SP urological surgery without increasing complications or readmission.

In addition, there are some limitations in this paper. First, there was no subgroup analysis by region, which can be further studied in the future. Secondly, the details of the complications were not evaluated, but will be analyzed in our future study.

Acknowledgments

Funding: None.

Footnote

Reporting Checklist: The authors have completed the PRISMA reporting checklist. Available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-21-850

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-21-850). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

  1. Li H, Zhao C, Liu P, et al. Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Androl Urol 2019;8:712-27. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Iwamoto H, Morizane S, Hikita K, et al. Postoperative inguinal hernia after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: evaluation of risk factors and recommendation of a convenient prophylactic procedure. Cent European J Urol 2019;72:418-24. [PubMed]
  3. Morselli S, Sebastianelli A, Campi R, et al. Adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy: the prognostic role of cumulative cancer length >6-mm threshold in prostate cancer-positive biopsies. Prostate Int 2019;7:143-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. Boeri L, Capogrosso P, Ventimiglia E, et al. Depressive Symptoms and Low Sexual Desire after Radical Prostatectomy: Early and Long-Term Outcomes in a Real-Life Setting. J Urol 2018;199:474-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. Dobbs RW, Halgrimson WR, Madueke I, et al. Single-port robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience and technique with the da Vinci® SP platform. BJU Int 2019;124:1022-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Seftel AD. Re: Functional and Oncologic Outcomes between Open and Robotic Radical Prostatectomy at 24-Month Follow-up in the Swedish LAPPRO Trial. J Urol 2019;202:1080. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. Park JY, Hong JH, Yu J, et al. Effect of Ketorolac on the Prevention of Postoperative Catheter-Related Bladder Discomfort in Patients Undergoing Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Study. J Clin Med 2019;8:759. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Peard L, Goodwin J, Hensley P, et al. Examining and Understanding Value: The Impact of Preoperative Characteristics, Intraoperative Variables, and Postoperative Complications on Cost of Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. J Endourol 2019;33:541-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Kajiwara N, Maeda J, Yoshida K, et al. Maximizing use of robot-arm no. 3 in daVinci-assisted thoracic surgery. Int Surg 2015;100:930-3. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. Lux MM, Marshall M, Erturk E, et al. Ergonomic evaluation and guidelines for use of the daVinci Robot system. J Endourol 2010;24:371-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. Maheshwari R, Qadri SY, Rakhul LR, et al. Prospective Nonrandomized Comparison Between Open and Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation: Analysis of Midterm Functional Outcomes. J Endourol 2020;34:939-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. Shukla D, Small A, Mehrazin R, et al. Single-port robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: initial clinical experience and lessons learned for successful outcomes. J Robot Surg 2021;15:293-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. Steinberg RL, Johnson BA, Meskawi M, et al. Magnet-Assisted Robotic Prostatectomy Using the da Vinci SP Robot: An Initial Case Series. J Endourol 2019;33:829-34. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Kaouk J, Valero R, Sawczyn G, et al. Extraperitoneal single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: initial experience and description of technique. BJU Int 2020;125:182-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Agarwal DK, Sharma V, Toussi A, et al. Initial Experience with da Vinci Single-port Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomies. Eur Urol 2020;77:373-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Kaouk J, Garisto J, Eltemamy M, et al. Single-port Robotic Intracorporeal Ileal Conduit Urinary Diversion During Radical Cystectomy Using the SP Surgical System: Step-by-step Technique. Urology 2019;130:196-200. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  17. Kaouk J, Garisto J, Eltemamy M, et al. Step-by-step technique for single-port robot-assisted radical cystectomy and pelvic lymph nodes dissection using the da Vinci® SP™ surgical system. BJU Int 2019; Epub ahead of print. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  18. Kaouk J, Garisto J, Bertolo R. Robotic Urologic Surgical Interventions Performed with the Single Port Dedicated Platform: First Clinical Investigation. Eur Urol 2019;75:684-91. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  19. Kaouk J, Garisto J, Bertolo R. Different approaches to the prostate: The upcoming role of a purpose-built single-port robotic system. Arab J Urol 2018;16:302-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  20. Mota Filho FHA, Sávio LF, Sakata RE, et al. Robot-assisted single port radical nephrectomy and cholecystectomy: description and technical aspects. Int Braz J Urol 2018;44:202-3. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  21. Lauterbach R, Matanes E, Lowenstein L. Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology-The Future Is Here. Rambam Maimonides Med J 2017;8:e0019. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  22. Liu CL, Li CC, Yang CR, et al. Trends in treatment for localized prostate cancer after emergence of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in Taiwan. J Chin Med Assoc 2011;74:155-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  23. Rembeyo G, Correas JM, Jantzen R, et al. Percutaneous Ablation Versus Robotic Partial Nephrectomy in the Treatment of cT1b Renal Tumors: Oncologic and Functional Outcomes of a Propensity Score-weighted Analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2020;18:138-47. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  24. Shim JS, Kwon TG, Rha KH, et al. Do patients benefit from total intracorporeal robotic radical cystectomy?: A comparative analysis with extracorporeal robotic radical cystectomy from a Korean multicenter study. Investig Clin Urol 2020;61:11-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  25. Roth JD, Gargollo PC, DaJusta DG, et al. Endoscopic-assisted robotic pyelolithotomy: a viable treatment option for complex pediatric nephrolithiasis. J Pediatr Urol 2020;16:192.e1-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  26. El-Taji O, Omer A, Al-Mitwalli A A, et al. Incidental Lymphoplasmacytic Lymphoma Diagnosed Following Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer. Curr Urol 2019;13:166-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  27. Cimen HI, Atik YT, Gul D, et al. Serving as a bedside surgeon before performing robotic radical prostatectomy improves surgical outcomes. Int Braz J Urol 2019;45:1122-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  28. Tosco L, Devos G, De Coster G, et al. Development and external validation of a nomogram to predict lymph node invasion after robot assisted radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2020;38:37.e11-20. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  29. Vigneswaran HT, Schwarzman LS, Francavilla S, et al. A Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes Between Single-port and Multiport Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2020;77:671-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  30. Moschovas MC, Bhat S, Sandri M, et al. Comparing the Approach to Radical Prostatectomy Using the Multiport da Vinci Xi and da Vinci SP Robots: A Propensity Score Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes. Eur Urol 2021;79:393-404. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  31. Kishimoto N, Takao T, Yamamichi G, et al. Impact of prior abdominal surgery on the outcomes after robotic - assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: single center experience. Int Braz J Urol 2016;42:918-24. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  32. Lenfant L, Sawczyn G, Aminsharifi A, et al. Pure Single-site Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Using Single-port Versus Multiport Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: A Single-institution Comparative Study. Eur Urol Focus 2021;7:964-72. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  33. Lenfant L, Garisto J, Sawczyn G, et al. Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Using Single-port Perineal Approach: Technique and Single-surgeon Matched-paired Comparative Outcomes. Eur Urol 2021;79:384-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  34. Talamini S, Halgrimson WR, Dobbs RW, et al. Single port robotic radical prostatectomy versus multi-port robotic radical prostatectomy: A human factor analysis during the initial learning curve. Int J Med Robot 2021;17:e2209. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  35. Lenfant L, Sawczyn G, Kim S, et al. Single-institution Cost Comparison: Single-port Versus Multiport Robotic Prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus 2021;7:532-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  36. Abaza R, Murphy C, Bsatee A, et al. Single-port Robotic Surgery Allows Same-day Discharge in Majority of Cases. Urology 2021;148:159-65. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  37. Refaai K, Sharafeldin MA, Elabbady A, et al. Perioperative Outcomes of Open Retrograde Extraperitoneal Versus Intracorporeal Robot-assisted Radical Cystoprostatectomy in Men: A Dual-center Comparative Study. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2020;18:e315-23. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  38. Nyarangi-Dix JN, Görtz M, Gradinarov G, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: functional and early oncologic results in aggressive and locally advanced prostate cancer. BMC Urol 2019;19:113. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  39. Sharma M, Dietz N, John K, et al. Impact of Surgical Approaches on Complications, Emergency Room Admissions, and Health Care Utilization in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Fusions for Degenerative Disc Diseases: A MarketScan Database Analysis. World Neurosurg 2021;145:e305-19. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  40. Mencucci R, Favuzza E, Scali G, et al. Protecting the Ocular Surface at the Time of Cataract Surgery: Intracameral Mydriatic and Anaesthetic Combination Versus A Standard Topical Protocol. Ophthalmol Ther 2020;9:1055-67. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  41. Biteghe FAN, Padayachee E, Davids LM, et al. Desensitization of metastatic melanoma cells to therapeutic treatment through repeated exposure to dacarbazine. J Photochem Photobiol B 2020;211:111982. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  42. Huang MM, Schwen ZR, Biles MJ, et al. A Comparative Analysis of Surgical Scar Cosmesis Based on Operative Approach for Radical Prostatectomy. J Endourol 2021;35:138-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  43. İnkaya A, Tahra A, Sobay R, et al. Comparison of surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer. Turk J Urol 2019;45:410-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  44. Xiong Q, Hao S, Shen L, et al. Pertussis-like syndrome often not associated with Bordetella pertussis: 5-year study in a large children's hospital. Infect Dis (Lond) 2020;52:736-42. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  45. Ventimiglia E, Doizi S, Kovalenko A, et al. Effect of temporal pulse shape on urinary stone phantom retropulsion rate and ablation efficiency using holmium:YAG and super-pulse thulium fibre lasers. BJU Int 2020;126:159-67. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  46. D'Alessandro A, Gumbs AA, Cartillone M, et al. Trans-stomal single-port laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal is an efficacious and efficient procedure: a case-controlled study. Tech Coloproctol 2020;24:455-62. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  47. Lowres N, Olivier J, Chao TF, et al. Estimated stroke risk, yield, and number needed to screen for atrial fibrillation detected through single time screening: a multicountry patient-level meta-analysis of 141,220 screened individuals. PLoS Med 2019;16:e1002903. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  48. Carvalho VF, Ueda T, Paggiaro AO, et al. Comparison of neurosensory devices in detecting cutaneous thresholds related to protective sensibility: A cross-sectional study in São Paulo, Brazil. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2019;157:107821. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  49. Ahmed ME, Motterle G, Andrews JR, et al. Salvage Radical Prostatectomy After Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: Case Series. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2020;18:e202-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  50. Achard V, Achard G, Friedlaender A, et al. Prostate Cancer Nonascitic Peritoneal Carcinomatosis After Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: 3 Case Reports and Review of the Literature. Urology 2020;137:121-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  51. Okegawa T, Omura S, Samejima M, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: comparison of oncological outcomes at a single center. Prostate Int 2020;8:16-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]

(English Language Editor: C. Betlazar-Maseh)

Cite this article as: Wei Y, Ji Q, Zuo W, Wang S, Wang X, Zhu Q. Efficacy and safety of single port robotic radical prostatectomy and multiport robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Androl Urol 2021;10(12):4402-4411. doi: 10.21037/tau-21-850

Article Options

Download Citation

Share