Single-Port <i>vs</i> Multiport Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score Matching Comparative Study

Noh, Tae Il; Kang, Young Jin; Shim, Ji Sung; Kang, Seok Ho; Cheon, Jun; Lee, Jeong Gu; Kang, Sung Gu

doi:10.1089/end.2021.0660

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following Foley catheter removal, varying continence outcomes have been reported with a mean time to continence of 116 ± 85.1 days as highlighted by Balasubramanian et al . and continence rates of 40.2% and 87.2% at 6 weeks and at 6 months, respectively, as demonstrated in a multi-institutional study by Abou Zeinab et al Furthermore, Balasubramanian et al estimated the time to erection of 134 ± 89.1 days, which appeared to correlate with the potency rates reported by Noh et al and Kim et al [ 5 , 6 , 14 , 16 ].…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 57%

“…(2023) [ 1 , 5 , 15 ] 238 155 (110.5–249.8) 75 (50–150) 100 (42%) 101 (52.9%) 0 (0%) 2 (1.3%) 14 (13–24) Total = 32 (13.4%) Major = 10 (4.2%) Noh et al . (2022) [ 16 ] 31 Mean 151.3 ± 15.1 Mean 121.1 ± 64.7 31 (100%) 5 (16.1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Clavien ≥ 2 = 0 (0%) Balasubramanian et al . (2022) [ 6 ] 39 Mean 248 ± 36 Mean 130 ± 70 37 (94.9%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) No.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(2023) [ 1 , 5 , 15 ] pT2 = 107 (72.3%) pT3a = 31 (20.9%) pT3b = 7 (4.7%) pT4 = 3 (2%) 61 (26.9%) 5 (4–5.2) 6 weeks = 68 (40.2%) 3 months = 133 (63%) 6 months = 163 (87.2%) Noh et al . (2022) [ 16 ] Group 1 = 4 (12.9%) Group 2 = 14 (45.1%) Group 3 = 10 (32.2%) Group 4 = 2 (6.5%) Group 5 = 1 (3.2%) pT2 = 22 (71%) ≥ pT3a = 9 (29%) 6 (19.4%) 0 (0%) 7 2 weeks = 48.4% 1 month = 67.7% 3 months = 77.4% 6 months = 80.6% 2 weeks = 19.4% 1 month = 22.6% 3 months = 45.2% 6 months = 67.7% Balasubramanian et al . (2022) [ 6 ] Group 1 = 4 (10.3%) Group 2 = 20 (51.3%) Group 3 = 9 (23.1%) Group 4 = 3 (7.7%) Group 5 = 3 (7.7%) pT2 = 21 (53.8%) pT3a = 12 (30.8%) pT3b = 6 (15.4%) 10 (25.6%) 6 (15.4%) 7 Time to continence (days) : mean 116 ± 85.1 Time to erection (days) : mean 134 ± 89.1 Kim et al .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent analysis comparing MP and SP Transperitoneal RARP by Noh et al . identified similar intraoperative console times, EBL, PSM rates, as well as 3-month continence and potency rates between the two robotic systems [ 16 ]. A different analysis comparing Extraperitoneal SP-RARP and Transperitoneal MP-RARP by Lenfant et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Soputro,

Kaouk

2024

World J Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To provide a comprehensive update on the different techniques and outcomes of contemporary Single-Port (SP) Robotic Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) approaches. Methods A literature review was performed to identify cohort studies that have utilized the purpose-built SP robotic platform (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, California) for RARP. All published approaches of SP-RARP were included in our review. Baseline clinical, perioperative, and postoperative oncological and functional outcomes were collected from the included studies. Results A total of 16 studies involving 1159 patients were identified. To date, five approaches of SP-RARP have been described, namely Transperitoneal, Extraperitoneal, Retzius-Sparing, Transperineal, and Transvesical. The surgical steps and clinical outcomes of the aforementioned approaches were discussed. While operating times were still faster in the Transperitoneal and Extraperitoneal cohorts, the novel and more regionalized Transvesical approach allowed for radical prostatectomy to be pursued in more patients with previous abdominal surgeries and contributed to significantly improved postoperative outcomes, including the earlier return of urinary continence and with most patients being discharged on the same day without any opioids. Conclusion Based on the existing literature, the introduction of SP-RARP not only enriched the repertoire of minimally-invasive surgical treatment options for prostate cancer but also provided the opportunity for urologists to develop new techniques that can improve perioperative outcomes and postoperative quality of life. Given the limited number of patients and heterogeneity in the patient selection and reporting of postoperative outcomes, further research remains necessary to better understand the different benefits and improve patient selection algorithms for the different techniques.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 57%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Soputro,

Kaouk

2024

World J Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…SP-RARP is associated with a higher cost for disposables as compared to MP-RARP 22 . However, the ability of the SP-RARP to deliver improved surgical outcomes and its cost-effectiveness are still debated 23 , 24 , 25 . Until now, most of the SP-RARP studies are retrospective single-center designs and/or single surgeon resulting in unavoidable selection bias that can cause an appreciable imbalance in baseline factors between the groups that are also associated with the outcome.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%