Single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and pooled analysis of the preliminary experiences.
oncology
prostate
prostate cancer
robotic surgery
single port
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2020
07 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
6
4
2020
medline:
1
12
2020
entrez:
6
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To summarize the clinical experiences with single-port (SP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) reported in the literature and to describe the peri-operative and short-term outcomes of this procedure. A systematic review of the literature was performed in December 2019 using Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), Cochrane databases, Scopus and Web of Science (PROSPERO registry number 164129). All studies that reported intra- and peri-operative data on SP-RARP were included. Cadaveric series and perineal or partial prostatectomy series were excluded. The pooled mean operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay and catheterization time were 190.55 min, 198.4 mL, 1.86 days and 8.21 days, respectively. The pooled mean number of lymph nodes removed was 8.33, and the pooled rate of positive surgical margins was 33%. The pooled minor complication rate was 15%. Only one urinary leakage and one major complication (transient ischaemic attack) were recorded. Regarding functional outcomes, pooled continence and potency rates at 12 weeks were 55% and 42%, respectively. The present analysis confirms that SP-RARP is safe and feasible. This novel robotic platform resulted in similar intra-operative and peri-operative outcomes to those obtained with the standard multiport da Vinci system. The advantages of single incision can be translated into a preservation of the patient's body image and self-esteem and cosmesis, which have a great impact on a patient's quality of life.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
55-64Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors BJU International © 2020 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1320-38
Kapoor DA, Zimberg SH, Ohrin LM, Underwood W, Olsson CA. Utilization s. J Urol 2011; 186: 860-4
Coughlin GD, Yaxley JW, Chambers SK et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19: 1051-60
Jazayeri SB, Weissman B, Samadi DB. Outcomes following robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: Pentafecta and Trifecta achievements. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2018; 70: 66-73
Zattoni F, Montebelli F, Rossanese M, Crestani A, Giannarini G, Ficarra V. Should radical prostatectomy be encouraged at any age? A critical non-systematic review. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2018; 70: 42-52
Checcucci E, Amparore D, De Luca S, Autorino R, Fiori C, Porpiglia F. Precision prostate cancer surgery: an overview of new technologies and techniques. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2019; 71: 487-501
Kaouk JH, Haber GP, Autorino R et al. A novel robotic system for singleport urologic surgery: first clinical investigation. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 1033-43
Dobbs RW, Halgrimson WR, Talamini S, Vigneswaran HT, Wilson JO, Crivellaro S. Single-port robotic surgery: the next generation of minimally invasive urology. World J Urol 2019; 38: 897-905
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2013
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: i4919
Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell Det al.The Newcastle Ottawa 1 scale(NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed January 2020
Clark HD, Wells GA, Huët C et al. Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale. Control Clin Trials 1999; 20: 448-52
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924-6
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 205-13
Kaouk J, Bertolo R, Eltemamy M, Garisto J. Single-Port Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: first clinical experience using the SP surgical system. Urology 2019; 124: 309
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
Kaouk JH, Bertolo R. Single-site robotic platform in clinical practice: first cases in the USA. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2019; 71: 294-8
Kaouk J, Valero R, Sawczyn G, Garisto J. Extraperitoneal single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: initial experience and description of technique. BJU Int 2020; 125: 182
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
Dobbs RW, Halgrimson WR, Madueke I, Vigneswaran HT, Wilson JO, Crivellaro S. Single-port robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience and technique with the da Vinci(®) SP platform. BJU Int 2019; 124: 1022-7
Ng CF, Teoh JY, Chiu PK et al. Robot-assisted single-port radical prostatectomy: a phase 1 clinical study. Int J Urol 2019; 26: 878-83
Steinberg RL, Johnson BA, Meskawi M, Gettman MT, Cadeddu JA. Magnet-assisted robotic prostatectomy using the da Vinci sp robot: an initial case series. J Endourol 2019; 33: 829-34
Sirisopana K, Jenjitranant P, Sangkum P et al. Perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy: 10 years of cases at Ramathibodi Hospital. Transl Androl Urol 2019; 8: 467-75
Tholomier C, Couture F, Ajib K et al. Oncological and functional outcomes of a large Canadian robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy database with 10 years of surgical experience. Can J Urol 2019; 26: 9843-51
Manfredi M, Checcucci E, Fiori C et al. Total anatomical reconstruction during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: focus on urinary continence recovery and related complications after 1000 procedures. BJU Int 2019; 124: 477-86
Covas Moschovas M, Bhat S, Rogers T et al. Technical modifications necessary to implement the da Vinci single-port robotic system. Eur Urol 2020 [Epub ahead of print]
Saidian A, Fang AM, Hakim O, Magi-Galluzzi C, Nix JW, Rais-Bahrami S. Perioperative outcomes between single-port and multi-port robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a single institutional experience. J Urol 2020 [Epub ahead of print]
Sachdeva A, Veeratterapillay R, Voysey A et al. Positive surgical margins and biochemical recurrence following minimally-invasive radical prostatectomy - an analysis of outcomes from a UK tertiary referral centre. BMC Urol 2017; 17: 91
Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 382-404
Checcucci E, Veccia A, Fiori C et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs the standard approach: a systematic review and analysis of comparative outcomes. BJU Int 2019; 125: 8-16
Cao L, Yang Z, Qi L, Chen M. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer: perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes: a Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019; 98: e15770
Hirpara DH, Azin A, Mulcahy V et al. The impact of surgical modality on self-reported body image, quality of life and survivorship after anterior resection for colorectal cancer - a mixed methods study. Can J Surg 2019; 62: 235-42
İyigün T, Kaya M, Gülbeyaz SÖ et al. Patient body image, self-esteem, and cosmetic results of minimally invasive robotic cardiac surgery. Int J Surg 2017; 39: 88-94
Autorino R, Kaouk JH, Stolzenburg JU et al. Current status and future directions of robotic single-site surgery: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 266-80
Kaouk JH, Autorino R, Laydner H et al. Robotic single-site kidney surgery: evaluation of second-generation instruments in a cadaver model. Urology 2012; 79: 975-9
Kaouk J, Aminsharifi A, Wilson CA et al. Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal single-port robotic radical prostatectomy: a comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes. J Urol 2019 [Epub ahead of print]
Checcucci E, Autorino R, Cacciamani GE et al. Artificial intelligence and neural networks in urology: current clinical applications. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2020; 72: 49-57
Checcucci E, Amparore D, Fiori C et al. 3D imaging applications for robotic urologic surgery: an ESUT YAUWP review. World J Urol 2019; 38: 869-81