A reply letter for comparison of single-port and multi-port robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner?

We would like to thank Wei et al. (1) for their comments on our research (2): efficacy and safety of single-port robotic radical prostatectomy and multiport robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The reviewers (Wei et al.) said that we stated that a total of seven comparative studies involving 1,711 patients were included in our study, but three of the studies were from the same medical center, which indicates that there is a high possibility of data duplication (3-5). In this situation, we should clearly indicate that the counting of the included population was 1,711 instead of population.

Secondly, the reviewers said that we claimed that the seven included studies were all randomized controlled trials, but a closer reading of the original text revealed that most of the studies were retrospectively designed. After a careful screening of the included literature, we should correct this statement and specify whether the included articles were randomized controlled trials or retrospective studies.

Thirdly, they suggested that we conduct a subgroups analysis based on the robot manufacturer. This is a constructive advice, and we could perform a subgroup analysis in the next study.

Acknowledgments

Funding: None.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Translational Andrology and Urology. The article did not undergo external peer review.

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tau.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tau-22-236/coif). 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 J, Cao D, Huang Y, et al. Comparison of single-port and multi-port robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner? Transl Androl Urol 2022;11:906-7. doi: 10.21037/tau-22-7410.21037/tau-22-74
2. Wei Y, Ji Q, Zuo W, et al. Efficacy and safety of single port robotic radical prostatectomy and multiport robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Androl Urol 2021;10:4402-11. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]