Comparing the Approach to Radical Prostatectomy Using the Multiport da Vinci Xi and Single-port da Vinci SP Robots: A Propensity Score Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes

被引:42
作者
Moschovas, Marcio Covas [1 ,2 ]
Bhat, Seetharam [1 ]
Sandri, Marco [3 ]
Rogers, Travis [1 ]
Onol, Fikret [1 ]
Mazzone, Elio [2 ,4 ,5 ,6 ]
Roof, Shannon [1 ]
Mottrie, Alexandre [2 ,4 ]
Patel, Vipul [1 ]
机构
[1] AdventHlth Global Robot Inst, 410 Celebrat Pl, Celebration, FL 34747 USA
[2] ORSI Acad, Melle, Belgium
[3] Univ Brescia, Big & Open Data Innovat Lab, Brescia, Italy
[4] Onze Lieve Vrouw Hosp, Dept Urol, Aalst, Belgium
[5] IRCCS San Raffaele Sci Inst, Dept Urol, Milan, Italy
[6] IRCCS San Raffaele Sci Inst, Div Expt Oncol, Urol Res Inst, Milan, Italy
关键词
Prostate cancer; Robotic surgery; Recovery; Continence; Potency; PROPOSAL; SITE;
D O I
10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.042
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Use of the single-port da Vinci SP robotic platform for various urological procedures has been described by several groups. However, the comparative performance of the SP robot in relation to earlier models such as the da Vinci Xi is still unclear. Objective: To compare intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes between the da Vinci Xi and SP robots for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) in a referral center. Design, setting, and participants: Data were prospectively collected for patients undergoing RP from June 2019 to April 2020 in a single center. The da Vinci SP was used for 71 patients and the da Vinci Xi for 875 patients. After propensity score (PS) matching, two groups of 71 patients were selected for the comparative study. Intervention: RP via a transperitoneal approach using the same technique steps and anatomy access with both robot consoles. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: A PS analysis was performed using the covariates age, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, Sexual Health Inventory for Men score, American Urological Association symptom score, prostate size, prostatespecific antigen levels, Gleason score, D'Amico risk group, and degree of nerve-sparing. Intraoperative performance and short-term functional (continence and potency) and oncological outcomes were compared between the groups. Results and limitations: Median follow-up was 4.4 mo (interquartile range [IQR] 1.67.2) for the SP group and 3.2 mo (IQR 1.6-4.8) for the Xi group (p = 0.2). The median total operative time and median console time were both significantly higher in the SP group, with median differences of 14 min (95% confidence interval [CI] 9-19) and 5 min (95% CI 0-5), respectively. The proportion of patients with blood loss of >100 ml was significantly lower in the SP group (difference of 27%, 95% CI 12-42%). No intra- or postoperative complications were reported in either group. There were no significant differences in pain scores at 6, 12, and 18 h or in positive surgical margin rates between the groups. The SP group had a significantly higher percentage of extraprostatic extension than the Xi group (difference of 16%, 95% CI 4.6-27%). None of the patients experienced biochemical recurrence during follow-up. The difference in continence rates at 45 d between the SP and Xi groups was 11% (95% CI -5.6% to 28%) and the difference in potency rates at 45 d was -7.3% (95% CI -21% to 6.2%). The short-term follow-up for comparison of functional and oncological outcomes is a limitation. Conclusions: Despite differences in trocar placement and technology between the two da Vinci consoles, the SP has satisfactory intraoperative performance compared to the Xi. SP surgery can be performed safely and effectively during the initial learning phase. However, longer-term follow-up is needed to provide further evidence on the impact of SP implementation on functional and oncological outcomes. Patient summary: We compared intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes for patients who underwent radical prostatectomy using two different robots, the da Vinci Xi and the single-port da Vinci SP. We found that operative time was longer for the Single Port console. Studies with long-term follow-up are needed to compare the functional and oncological outcomes. (C) 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:393 / 404
页数:12
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]   Initial Experience with da Vinci Single-port Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomies [J].
Agarwal, Deepak K. ;
Sharma, Vidit ;
Toussi, Amir ;
Viers, Boyd R. ;
Tollefson, Matthew K. ;
Gettman, Matthew T. ;
Frank, Igor .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2020, 77 (03) :373-379
[2]   Guidelines for reporting of statistics for clinical research in urology [J].
Assel, Melissa ;
Sjoberg, Daniel ;
Elders, Andrew ;
Wang, Xuemei ;
Huo, Dezheng ;
Botchway, Albert ;
Delfino, Kristin ;
Fan, Yunhua ;
Zhao, Zhiguo ;
Koyama, Tatsuki ;
Hollenbeck, Brent ;
Qin, Rui ;
Zahnd, Whitney ;
Zabor, Emily C. ;
Kattan, Michael W. ;
Vickers, Andrew J. .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2019, 123 (03) :401-410
[3]   Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples [J].
Austin, Peter C. .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2009, 28 (25) :3083-3107
[4]   Nomenclature of Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES™) and Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery (LESS) Procedures in Urology [J].
Box, Geoffrey ;
Averch, Timothy ;
Cadeddu, Jeffrey ;
Cherullo, Edward ;
Clayman, Ralph ;
Desai, Mihir ;
Frank, Igor ;
Gettman, Matthew ;
Gill, Inderbir ;
Gupta, Mantu ;
Haber, Georges-Pascal ;
Kaouk, Jihad ;
Landman, Jaime ;
Lima, Esteavao ;
Ponsky, Lee ;
Rane, Abhay ;
Sawyer, Mark ;
Humphreys, Mitchell .
JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2008, 22 (11) :2575-2581
[5]   Influence of Modified Posterior Reconstruction of the Rhabdosphincter on Early Recovery of Continence and Anastomotic Leakage Rates after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy [J].
Coelho, Rafael F. ;
Chauhan, Sanket ;
Orvieto, Marcelo A. ;
Sivaraman, Ananthakrishnan ;
Palmer, Kenneth J. ;
Coughlin, Geoff ;
Patel, Vipul R. .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2011, 59 (01) :72-80
[6]   Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs. open radical prostatectomy: latest evidences on perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes [J].
Dell'Oglio, Paolo ;
Mottrie, Alexandre ;
Mazzone, Elio .
CURRENT OPINION IN UROLOGY, 2020, 30 (01) :73-78
[7]  
DiMaio S, 2011, SURGICAL ROBOTICS: SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS AND VISIONS, P199, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-1126-1_9
[8]   Classification of surgical complications - A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey [J].
Dindo, D ;
Demartines, N ;
Clavien, PA .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2004, 240 (02) :205-213
[9]   The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System [J].
Epstein, Jonathan I. ;
Egevad, Lars ;
Amin, Mahul B. ;
Delahunt, Brett ;
Srigley, John R. ;
Humphrey, Peter A. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2016, 40 (02) :244-252
[10]   Origins of Robotic Surgery: From Skepticism to Standard of Care [J].
George, Evalyn I. ;
Brand, Timothy C. ;
LaPorta, Anthony ;
Marescaux, Jacques ;
Satava, Richard M. .
JSLS-JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS, 2018, 22 (04)