Home  |   Archive  |   Online Submission  |   News & Events  |   Subscribe  |   APFA  |   Society  |   Contact Us  |   中文版
Search   
 
Journal

Ahead of print
Authors' Accepted
    Manuscripts
new!
Current Issue
Archive
Acknowledgments
Special Issues
Browse by Category

Manuscript Submission

Online Submission
Online Review
Instruction for Authors
Instruction for Reviewers
English Corner new!

About AJA

About AJA
Editorial Board
Contact Us
News

Resources & Services

Advertisement
Subscription
Email alert
Proceedings
Reprints

Download area

Copyright licence
EndNote style file
Manuscript word template
Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in English)

Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in Chinese)

Proof-reading for the
    authors

AJA Club (in English)
AJA Club (in Chinese)

 
Abstract

Volume 23, Issue 6 (November 2021) 23, 640–647; 10.4103/aja.aja_50_21

A comparison of perioperative outcomes between extraperitoneal robotic single-port and multiport radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci Si Surgical System

Guan-Qun Ju1, Zhi-Jun Wang1, Jia-Zi Shi1, Zong-Qin Zhang1, Zhen-Jie Wu1, Lei Yin1, Bing Liu1, Lin-Hui Wang1, Dong-Liang Xu1,2

1 Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China
2 Urology Centre, Shuguang Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai 200021, China

Correspondence: Dr. DL Xu (dongliangxuurology@163.com)

Date of Submission 03-Oct-2020 Date of Acceptance 21-Apr-2021 Date of Web Publication 15-Jun-2021

Abstract

To evaluate outcomes between extraperitoneal robotic single-port radical prostatectomy (epR-spRP) and extraperitoneal robotic multiport radical prostatectomy (epR-mpRP) performed with the da Vinci Si Surgical System, comparison was performed between 30 single-port (SP group) and 26 multiport (MP group) cases. Comparisons included operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), hospital stay, peritoneal violation, pain scores, scar satisfaction, continence, and erectile function. The median operation time and EBL were not different between the two groups. In the SP group, the median operation time of the first 10 patients was obviously longer than that of the latter 20 patients (P < 0.001). The median postoperative hospital stay in the SP group was shorter than that in the MP group (P < 0.001). The rate of peritoneal damage in the SP group was less than that in the MP group (P = 0.017). The pain score and overall need for pain medications in the SP group were lower than those in the MP group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.015, respectively). Patients in the SP group were more satisfied with their scars than those in the MP group 3 months postoperatively (P = 0.007). At 3 months, the cancer control, recovery of erectile function, and urinary continence rates were similar between the two groups. It is safe and feasible to perform epR-spRP using the da Vinci Si surgical system. Therefore, epR-spRP can be a treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Although epR-spRP still has a learning curve, it has advantages for postoperative pain and self-assessed cosmesis. In the absence of the single-port robotic surgery platform, we can still provide minimally invasive surgery for patients.

Keywords: extraperitoneal approach; minimally invasive surgery; prostate cancer; robotic radical prostatectomy; single-port

Full Text | PDF |

 
Browse:  933
 
Asian Journal of Andrology CN 31-1795/R ISSN 1008-682X  Copyright © 2023  Shanghai Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences.  All rights reserved.