Purpose: Several case series have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of outpatient robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in well-selected patients; however, the patient perspective of this practice has not been well explored. In this study, we explored patients' perspectives on the potential barriers and benefits of outpatient RARP. Materials and Methods: We developed a multidimensional questionnaire to assess socioeconomic status, presence of caretaker at home, preferred transportation to the emergency room in case of chest pain or postsurgical complications, readiness for discharge at postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and potential barriers for discharge. In addition, patients were asked to provide an estimate of overnight hospitalization costs and their willingness to pay out-of-pocket expenses for their overnight stay. Patients who underwent RARP between August 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019, were asked to fill the questionnaire within the first week following their operation. Results: During our study, 157/292 (53.8%) of men undergoing RARP from a single high-volume robotic surgeon completed the survey. Patients who completed <80% of the survey ( n = 5) were excluded from the final analysis. Thirty-seven (24.3%) patients felt that they would have been ready for discharge immediately from PACU, and 48 (31.6%) patients after extended recovery and before midnight. Only 17.8% ( n = 27) of the patients claim that they experienced a medical intervention in the hospital that could not have been managed at home. The main barriers for same-day discharge were pain (55.9%, 80/143), catheter discomfort (44.7%, 64/143), insufficient education about catheter care (31.4%, 45/143), postoperative nausea and vomiting (15.3%, 22/143), and medical complications (13.2%, 19/143). Conclusions: Two-thirds of patients following RARP did not feel ready to be discharged on the day of their surgery. Further research is necessary to identify patients who may benefit from this approach to reduce health care costs while minimizing patient postoperative morbidity.

Objective: The da Vinci single-port (SP) platform represents the latest innovation in minimally invasive urologic surgery, and the adoption of this technology by urologists is increasing. In this article, we briefly describe the evolution of minimally invasive and single-site surgery, and offer a comprehensive review of the current literature on the SP platform. Materials and Methods: For relevant articles, three electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched from their inception until August 15, 2022. The published literature to date within SP robotic surgery in urology will be discussed. Evidence Synthesis: There are relatively few high-quality studies on the SP system, but there are multiple case series describing unique indications and surgical approaches with the SP robot, demonstrating safety and feasibility in the hands of experienced robotic surgeons. There also are an increasing number of prospective, larger cohort studies comparing outcomes between SP and multiport (MP) approaches that show benefits of the SP system regarding improved cosmesis, postoperative pain control, and decreased length of stay. Conclusions: Multiple prospective studies have shown benefits regarding cost and pain control for SP platform procedures compared to the traditional MP robotic approach. While its high cost and learning curve represent barriers to adoption, the SP platform represents a critical development in minimally invasive surgery. As this technology is further implemented at more institutions, long-term, high-quality data should accrue that will demonstrate its true value.

Background Several centers have reported their experience with single-port robotic partial nephrectomy (SP-RAPN) however, it is uncertain if utilization of this platform represents an improvement in outcomes as compared to multiport robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (MP-RAPN). To evaluate this, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes between SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN. Methods For relevant articles, three electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched from their inception until January 1, 2023. A meta-analysis has been reported in line with PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR Guidelines. The odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (MD) were applied for the comparison of dichotomous and continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Of the 374 retrieved abstracts, eight studies were included in the final analysis, comprising a total cohort of 1,007 cases of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (453 SP-RAPN cases and 554 MP-RAPN cases). Compared to MP-RARP, the SP-RAPN group had a significantly longer ischemia time (MD = 4.6 minutes, 95% CI 2.8 to 6.3, p<0.001), less estimated blood loss (MD = -12.4 mL, 95% CI -24.6 to -0.3, p=0.045), higher blood transfusion rate (OR = 2.97, 95% CI 1.33 to 6.65, p=0.008), and higher postoperative eGFR at 6 months (MD = 4.9 mL/min, 95% CI 0.2 to 9.7, p=0.04). There were no significant differences in other outcomes between the two approaches, including the intraoperative complication, minor postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo I-II), major postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo III-V), conversion to radical nephrectomy, pain score at day #1, pain score on discharge, morphine milligram equivalent (MME) usage, hospital stay, positive surgical margins and postoperative eGFR. Conclusions Initial studies have demonstrated that SP-RAPN is a safe and feasible approach to performing partial nephrectomy, albeit with inferior outcomes for ischemia time and blood transfusion rates.

To compare the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes between single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP) and multiport robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (MP-RARP) via a meta-analysis. For relevant articles, three electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched from their inception until January 15, 2022. A meta-analysis has been reported in line with PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR Guidelines. The risk ratio and weighted mean difference (MD) were applied for the comparison of dichotomous and continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Of the 368 retrieved abstracts, 41 underwent full-text review, and seven studies were included in the final analysis, comprising a total cohort of 1,934 cases of RARP (355 SP-RARP cases and 1,579 MP-RARP cases). Compared to MP-RARP, the SP-RARP group had less postoperative pain score (MD = –0.7, 95% CI –1 to –0.4, P<0.001), morphine milligram equivalents usage (MD = –3.8, 95% CI –7.5 to –0.1, P=0.04), hospital stay (MD = –1, 95% CI –1.8 to –0.1, P=0.019), and urinary catheterization time (MD = –1.1, 95% CI –1.9 to –0.3, P=0.008). However, the SP-RARP group had a longer console time than the MP-RARP group (MD = 5.3, 95% CI 2.6 to 7.9, P<0.001). Our study demonstrated that early results were mostly equivalent with the single-port approach. This technology may help to reduce the hospital stay and postoperative pain for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy compared to MP-RARP, without compromising the functional and early oncological outcomes.

Rambhatla A, et al. World J Mens Health. 2025 Jan;43(1):92-122. https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.230339