Single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with the da vinci sp system: A single surgeon’s experience

16Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Purpose: To report an initial single-surgeon experience with single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP) using the da Vinci SP surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, USA). Materials and Methods: Between December 2018 and October 2019, a single surgeon performed SP-RARP in 20 patients with prostate cancer. SP-RARP was performed using the conventional approach through an umbilical port with a GelPOINT access system (Applied Medical, USA) and an additional assist port. During surgery, the camera was placed in the 6-or 12-o’clock position, and a traction arm was placed in the counterpart position for upward or downward traction. Clinicopathologic data, perioperative data, and short-term surgical outcomes were analyzed. Results: Of 20 patients, 45% of patients had pT3 or greater disease and 45% had Gleason grade 4 to 5, respectively. In 11 patients that underwent lymph node dissection, the median number of lymph nodes removed was 19 (interquartile range [IQR], 14–22). Median operative time was 245 minutes (IQR, 200–255), and median console time was 190 minutes (IQR, 165–210). Median blood loss was 200 mL (IQR, 150–300 mL), and there were no intraoperative complications or open conversion. In 10 patients with a follow-up period longer than 3 months, one patient experienced biochemical recurrence, and all patients required 0 to 1 pads per day. Of seven patients that were potent before surgery, four recovered erectile function sufficient for intercourse. Conclusions: Our report shows the safety and feasibility of SP-RARP, and that the associated surgical outcomes with short-term follow-up are satisfactory.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kim, K. H., Song, W., Yoon, H., & Lee, D. H. (2020). Single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with the da vinci sp system: A single surgeon’s experience. Investigative and Clinical Urology, 61(2), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2020.61.2.173

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free