Laparoendoscopic Single-site and Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery in Urology: A Critical Analysis of the Literature

Context

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) have been developed to benefit patients by enabling surgeons to perform scarless surgery.

Objective

To summarize and critically analyze the available evidence on the current status and future perspectives of LESS and NOTES in urology.

Evidence acquisition

A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted in June 2010 using the Medline database to identify all publications relating to NOTES and LESS in urology.

Evidence synthesis

In urology, NOTES has been completed experimentally via transgastric, transvaginal, transcolonic, and transvesical routes. Initial clinical experience has shown that NOTES urologic surgery using currently available instruments is indeed possible. Nevertheless, because of the immaturity of the instrumentation, early cases have demanded high technical virtuosity. LESS can safely and effectively be performed in a variety of urologic settings. As clinical experience increases, expanding indications are expected to be documented and the efficacy of the procedure to improve. So far, the quality of evidence of all available studies remains low, mostly being small case series or case-control studies from selected centers. Thus, the only objective benefit of LESS remains the improved cosmetic outcome. Prospective, randomized studies are largely awaited to determine which LESS procedures will be established and which are unlikely to stand the test of time. Technology advances hold promise to minimize the challenging technical nature of scarless surgery. In this respect, robotics is likely to drive a major paradigm shift in the development of LESS and NOTES.

Conclusions

NOTES is still an investigational approach in urology. LESS has proven to be immediately applicable in the clinical field, being safe and feasible in the hands of experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Development of instrumentation and application of robotic technology are expected to define the actual role of these techniques in minimally invasive urologic surgery.     

Robotic Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Radical Prostatectomy: Technique and Early Outcomes

Background

Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery is challenging. To help overcome current technical and ergonomic limitations, the da Vinci robotic platform can be applied to LESS.

Objectives

Our aim was to describe the surgical technique and to report the early outcomes of robotic LESS (R-LESS) radical prostatectomy (RP).

Design, setting, and participants

A retrospective review of prospectively captured R-LESS RP data was performed between May 2008 and May 2010. A total of 20 procedures were scheduled (12 with and 8 without pelvic lymph node dissection).

Surgical procedure

R-LESS prostatectomy was performed using the methods outlined in the paper and in the supplemental video material.

Interventions

All patients underwent R-LESS RP by one high-volume surgeon. Single-port access was achieved via a commercially available multichannel port. The da Vinci S and da Vinci Si surgical platform was used with pediatric and standard instruments.

Measurements

Preoperative, perioperative, pathologic, and functional outcomes data were analyzed.

Results and limitations

The mean age was 60.4 yr; body mass index was 25.4 kg/m². The mean operative time was 189.5 min; estimated blood loss was 142.0 ml. The average length of stay was 2.7 d, and the visual analog pain score at discharge was 1.4 of 10. Four focal positive margins were encountered, with two occurring during the first three cases. Pathology revealed a Gleason score of 3 + 3 in 3 patients, 3 + 4 in 11 patients, 4 + 3 in 4 patients, and 4 + 4 in 2 patients. There were a total of four complications according to the Clavien system including one grade 1, two grade 2, and one grade 4. The median follow-up has been 4 mo (range: 1–24 mo). Study limitations include the small sample size, the short follow-up, and the lack of comparative cohort.

Conclusions

The R-LESS RP is technically feasible and reduces some of the difficulties encountered with conventional LESS RP.     

R-LESS Partial Nephrectomy Trifecta Outcome Is Inferior to Multiport Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Comparative Analysis

Background

Trifecta achievement in partial nephrectomy (PN) is defined as the combination of warm ischemia time ≤20 min, negative surgical margins, and no surgical complications.

Objective

To compare trifecta achievement between robotic, laparoendoscopic, single-site (R-LESS) PN and multiport robotic PN (RPN).

Design, setting, and participants

Data from 167 patients who underwent RPN from 2006 to 2012 were retrospectively analyzed.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Primary outcome measurement was trifecta achievement; secondary outcome was the perioperative and postoperative comparison between groups. The measurements were estimated and analyzed with SPSS v.18 using univariable, multivariable, and subgroup analyses.

Results and limitations

Eighty-nine patients were treated with RPN and 78 were treated with R-LESS PN. Baseline characteristics of both groups were similar. Trifecta was achieved in 38 patients (42.7%) in the multiport RPN group and 20 patients (25.6%) in the R-LESS PN group (p = 0.021). Patients in the R-LESS PN group had longer mean operative time, warm ischemia time, and increased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) percentage change. No significant differences were found between the two groups in days of hospitalization, blood loss, postoperative eGFR, positive surgical margins, and surgical complications. Patients with increased PADUA and RENAL scores, infiltration of the collecting system, and renal sinus involvement had an increased probability of not achieving the trifecta. In regression analysis, the type of procedure and the tumor size could predict trifecta accomplishment (p = 0.019 and 0.043, respectively). The retrospective study, the low number of series, and the controversial definition of trifecta were the main limitations.

Conclusions

The trifecta was achieved in significantly more patients who underwent multiport RPN than those who underwent R-LESS PN. R-LESS PN could be an alternative option for patients with decreased tumor size, low PADUA and RENAL scores, and without renal sinus or collecting system involvement.

Patient summary

In this study, we looked at the outcomes of patients who had undergone robotic partial nephrectomy. We found that conventional robotic partial nephrectomy is superior to R-LESS partial nephrectomy with regard to the accomplishment of negative margins, reduced warm ischemia time, and minimal surgical complications.     

Perioperative comparison of robotic assisted laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) pyeloplasty versus conventional LESS pyeloplasty

Background

Conventional laparoendoscopic single-site (C-LESS) pyeloplasty is technically challenging due to instrument clashing, loss of triangulation, and difficulty sewing. Application of the da Vinci S or Si robotic platforms could potentially overcome these challenges.

Objective

Compare our initial experience with robotic assisted laparoendoscopic single-site (R-LESS) pyeloplasty to our latter experience with C-LESS pyeloplasty (ie, after the initial 15 patients).

Design, setting, and participants

This single-institution retrospective observational cohort study involved consecutive patients who presented with symptomatic ureteropelvic junction obstruction and who were deemed suitable for single-incision pyeloplasty by the treating surgeon.

Measurements

Demographic, clinical, perioperative, and early postoperative comparative outcomes.

Results and limitations

Ten patients each underwent R-LESS or C-LESS pyeloplasty by a single surgeon between March 2009 and July 2011. For R-LESS and C-LESS groups, age, gender distribution, body mass index, proportion of patients with prior abdominal surgery, estimated blood loss, and hospital length of stay were statistically similar. Mean operative time was significantly longer for R-LESS (226 vs 188 min; p = 0.007). C-LESS pyeloplasty alone required an accessory port for the anastomosis in 10 of 10 cases. Two conversions to standard laparoscopy and two postoperative complications occurred in 3 of 10 patients in the C-LESS group, compared with no conversions and one postoperative complication in the R-LESS group (p = 0.26). Study limitations are a retrospective design, a modest number of patients, and a lack of quantification of subjective outcomes such as instrument clashing and maneuverability.

Conclusions

Adaptation of the da Vinci Si robotic surgical platform to laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty appears to reduce the physical learning curve for this complex procedure. Future prospective, comprehensive evaluation of additional outcomes including subjective parameters, cosmesis, and longer term functional outcomes will help better define its role in minimally invasive dismembered pyeloplasty and better estimate its associated learning curve.     

EAU Guidelines on Robotic and Single-site Surgery in Urology

Context

This is a short version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on robotic and single-site surgery in urology, as created in 2013 by the EAU Guidelines Office Panel on Urological Technologies.

Objective

To evaluate current evidence regarding robotic and single-site surgery in urology and to provide clinical recommendations.

Evidence acquisition

A comprehensive online systematic search of the literature according to Cochrane recommendations was performed in July 2012, identifying data from 1990 to 2012 regarding robotic and single-site surgery in urology.

Evidence synthesis

There is a lack of high-quality data on both robotic and single-site surgery for most upper and lower urinary tract operations. Mature evidence including midterm follow-up data exists only for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. In the absence of high-quality data, the guidelines panel's recommendations were based mostly on the review of low-level evidence and expert opinions.

Conclusions

Robot-assisted urologic surgery is an emerging and safe technology for most urologic operations. Further documentation including long-term oncologic and functional outcomes is deemed necessary before definite conclusions can be drawn regarding the superiority or not of robotic assistance compared with the conventional laparoscopic and open approaches. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery is a novel laparoscopic technique providing a potentially superior cosmetic outcome over conventional laparoscopy. Nevertheless, further advantages offered by this technology are still under discussion and not yet proven. Due to the technically demanding character of the single-site approach, only experienced laparoscopic surgeons should attempt this technique in clinical settings.

Patient summary

This work represents the shortened version of the 2013 European Association of Urology guidelines on robotic and single-site surgery. The authors systematically evaluated published evidence in these fields and concluded that robotic assisted surgery is possible and safe for most urologic operations. Whilst laparoendoscopic single-site surgery is performed using the fewest incisions, the balance between risk and benefit is currently unclear. The evidence to support the conclusions in this guideline was generally poor, but best for robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. As such, these recommendations were based upon expert opinion, and further high-quality research is needed in this field.     

Robotic Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery Using GelPort as the Access Platform

Background

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) allows for the performance of major urologic procedures with a single small incision and minimal scarring. The da Vinci Surgical System provides advantages of easy articulation and improved ergonomics; however, an ideal platform for these procedures has not been identified.

Objective

To evaluate the GelPort laparoscopic system as an access platform for robotic LESS (R-LESS) procedures.

Design, setting, and participants

Since April 2008, 11 R-LESS procedures have been completed successfully in a single institutional referral center. For the last four consecutive cases, the GelPort has been used as an access platform through a 2.5–5-cm umbilical incision.

Intervention

R-LESS cases performed with the GelPort included pyeloplasty (n = 2), radical nephrectomy (n = 1), and partial nephrectomy (n = 1).

Measurements

Perioperative data were obtained for all patients including demographic data, operative indications, operative records, length of stay, complications, and pathologic analysis.

Results and limitations

For both pyeloplasty cases, average operative time (OR time) was 235 min and estimated blood loss (EBL) was 38 cm³. For the patient undergoing radical nephrectomy for a 5.1-cm renal tumor, OR time was 200 min and EBL was 250 cm³. The final patient underwent partial nephrectomy without renal hilar clamping for an 11-cm angiomyolipoma with OR time of 180 min and EBL of 600 cm³. All R-LESS procedures attempted with the GelPort were completed successfully and without complication. Average length of hospital stay was 1.75 d (range: 1–2). The partial nephrectomy patient required transfusion of 1 U of packed red blood cells.

Conclusions

Use of the GelPort as an access platform for R-LESS procedures provides adequate spacing and flexibility of port placement and acceptable access to the surgical field for the assistant, especially during procedures that require a specimen extraction incision. Additional platform and instrumentation development will likely simplify R-LESS procedures further as experience grows.     

Robotic-Assisted Pyeloplasty:Recent Developments in Efficacy, Outcomes, and New Techniques

Within the last decade, the adaptation of robotic urologic surgery has had a profound impact on surgical practice, with robotic upper tract reconstruction for ureteropelvic junction obstruction gaining rapid acceptance. Recent advances in robotic reconstruction demonstrate efficacious outcomes of robotic pyeloplasty, as compared with conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty, even in the case of secondary surgery. Furthermore, efforts to continue to reduce the morbidity of laparoscopic surgery have led to the development and implementation of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery. The recent applications of the da Vinci robotic surgical platform to LESS pyeloplasty (R-LESS) has demonstrated the potential to further decrease morbidity, improve surgeon ergonomics, and improve cosmesis.     

Feasibility of Robotic Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Tumors >4 cm

Background

Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) urologic procedures have gained significant interest worldwide in an attempt to further reduce morbidity and minimize scarring associated with conventional laparoscopic surgery. The robotic technology has overcome some of the limitations of manual single-incision surgery relating to lack of triangulation, instrument collision, and surgical exposure. There are no data on robotic LESS partial nephrectomy (PN) for renal tumors >4 cm.

Objectives

To evaluate the feasibility of robotic LESS PN for renal tumors >4 cm.

Design, setting, and participants

Data from 67 consecutive patients who underwent robotic LESS PN were collected between May 2009 to January 2011.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Patients were stratified into two groups: 20 patients with renal tumors >4 cm (group 1) and 47 patients with renal tumors ≤4 cm (group 2). Perioperative data were recorded and comparisons between the two groups were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher exact test for categorical variables.

Results and limitations

No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in demographic information, operative complications, pathologic characteristics, mean decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate, estimated blood loss, operative times, conversion rate, or positive surgical margins. However, group 1 had a higher mean nephrometry score (p < 0.01), longer warm ischemia time (p = 0.007), and longer length of stay (p = 0.046). Its retrospective design and being conducted at a single center were the main limitations of this study.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated the feasibility and safety of robotic LESS PN for tumors >4 cm. Patients with tumors >4 cm had a statistically significant, higher mean nephrometry score, longer warm ischemia time, and longer length of stay, but there was no increased risk of adverse outcomes. A long-term study is needed to confirm the durable renal preservation and oncologic outcomes for patients with larger tumor burden.     

腹腔镜手术进展—LESS与R—LESS

腹腔镜手术从一出现就以其手术创伤小、术后疼痛轻、美容效果好而受到普遍关注,并迅速在各专科领域普及和发展,日趋成熟,渐成为外科手术的主流。如今传统的多孔腹腔镜手术正在向单孔过渡,同时经自然腔道的“无孔”手术也在研究当中,机器人的应用更为繁荣腹腔镜手术锦上添花。本文回顾分析相关文献,对近年来在腹腔镜手术领域出现的两大创新：单孔腹腔镜手术（1aparoendoscopic single-site surgery,LESS）和机器人辅助的单孔腹腔镜手术（robotic—assisted laparoendoscopic single—sitesurgery,R—I。ESS）做一综述探讨。     

Comparison of robotic and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery systems in a suturing and knot tying task

Background

Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery has been established for various procedures. Shortcomings of LESS surgery include loss of triangulation, instrument collisions, and poor ergonomics, making advanced laparoscopic tasks especially challenging. We compared a LESS system with a robotic single-site surgery platform in performance of a suturing and knot-tying task under clinically simulated conditions.

Methods

Each of five volunteer minimally invasive surgeons was tasked with suturing a 5 cm longitudinal enterotomy in porcine small intestine with square knots at either end, using a laparoendoscopic or da Vinci robotic single-site surgery platform, within a 20 min time limit. A saline leak test was then performed. Each surgeon performed the task twice using each system. The time to completion of the task and presence of a leak were noted. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the overall completion rate within the defined time limit, and a Wilcoxon rank test was used to compare the specific times to complete the task. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

All surgeons were able to complete the task on the first try within 20 min using the robot system; 60 % of surgeons were able to complete it after two attempts using the LESS surgery system. Time to completion using the robot system was significantly shorter than the time using the standard LESS system (p < 0.0001). There were no leaks after closure with the robot system; the leak rate following the standard LESS system was 90 %.

Conclusions

Surgeons demonstrated significantly better suturing and knot-tying capabilities using the robot single-site system compared to a standard LESS system. The robotic system has the potential to expand single-site surgery to more complex tasks.     

机器人单孔腹腔镜手术在泌尿外科的发展现状及展望

随着微创观念在外科手术中的进一步深入,医生和患者都期待无瘢痕手术的实现。如今,机器人单孔腹腔镜(Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site,R-LESS)手术无疑是最接近此目标的方法之一,其不仅具有单孔腹腔镜手术微创、美观、少痛、恢复快等优点,同时具有机器人独有的3D手术视野、术者震颤消除等优点。单孔腹腔镜和机器人手术系统结合而生的R-LESS使得微创手术向前迈进了一大步。本综述以R-LESS的发展历史为切入点,总结国内外发展现状,分析其优势与不足,并对未来进行展望,旨在促进R-LESS在泌尿外科领域的发展。     

Small Bowel Injury During Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery for Simple Nephrectomy

Background and Objectives:

A 71-year-old man underwent a right simple nephrectomy via the laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) approach for intractable right flank pain and gross hematuria. A postoperative diagnosis of duodenal injury was suspected by physical findings and confirmed by computed tomography imaging.

Methods:

Emergency exploratory laparotomy revealed a <5-mm full-thickness perforation of the duodenum and an accompanying 1-cm seromuscular injury.

Results:

The subsequent postoperative course was unremarkable except for a right intraabdominal seroma that resolved without intervention.

Conclusion:

LESS nephrectomy is an effective surgical approach, but more data are needed regarding its surgical outcomes and complications. This case shows that the LESS approach is not without the risk of life-threatening complications, and it must be performed by experienced surgeons in select patients who are notably interested in improved cosmesis, after an informed consent that includes the potential for complications.     

Evolution and simplified terminology of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), and mini-laparoscopy (ML)

Introduction

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) are the next steps in the evolution of laparoscopic surgery, promising reduced morbidity and improved cosmetic result. The inconsistent terminology initially used led to confusion. Understanding the technical evolution, the current status and a unified and simplified terminology are key issues for further acceptance of both approaches.

Objective

To present LESS and NOTES in its historical context and to clarify the associated terminology.

Method

Extensive literature search took place using the PubMed. Several hundred publications in general surgery and urology regarding LESS are present including the expert opinion of members the European Society of Uro-technology (ESUT).

Results

The increasing interest on NOTES and LESS is reflected by a raising number of publications during the last 4?years. The initial confusion with the terminology of single-incision surgery represented a significant issue for further evolution of the technique. Thus, consortiums of experts searched a universally acceptable name for single-incision surgery. They determined that ‘laparoendoscopic single-site surgery’ (LESS) was both scientifically accurate and colloquially appropriate, the term being also ratified by the NOTES working group (Endourological Society) and the ESUT. For additional use of instruments, the terms hybrid NOTES and hybrid LESS should be used. Any single use of miniaturized instruments for laparoscopy should be called mini-laparoscopy.

Discussion

The evolution of LESS and most likely NOTES to a new standard of minimally invasive surgery could represent an evolutionary step even greater than the one performed by the establishment of laparoscopy over open surgery.     

Robotic-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy: first experience with the novel Da Vinci single-site platform

Purpose

To report our first cases of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site (R-LESS) radical nephrectomy with the novel Da Vinci R-LESS platform (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA).

Methods

Six radical nephrectomies were performed with R-LESS Da Vinci single-site port and instruments. Data concerning patients characteristics, indication of surgery, operative and postoperative outcomes were collected.

Results

All procedures were completed successfully. Two patients required the placement of an additional port. Median operative, docking and console times were 179 min (range 120–318), 19 min (range 15–24) and 129 min (range 100–264), respectively. Median blood loss was 100 ml (range 50–800). No significant robotic-related problem was noticed during the procedures. There was no operative or major postoperative (Clavien >2) complication. Median length of hospital stay was 3 days.

Conclusion

Our initial experience of R-LESS radical nephrectomies with the novel Da Vinci platform shows that the procedure is feasible. Indications, safety and place of the technique will be confirmed with growing experience.     

The Effect of Product Safety Courses on the Adoption and Outcomes of LESS Surgery

Background and Objectives:

As technology in surgery evolves, the medical instrument industry is inevitability involved in promoting the use and appropriate (ie, effective and safe) application of its products. This study was undertaken to evaluate industry-supported product safety courses in laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery, by using the metrics of surgeons'' adoption of the technique, safety of the procedure, and surgeons'' perception of the surgery.

Methods:

LESS surgery courses that involved didactic lectures, operative videos, operation observation, collaborative learning, and simulation, were attended by 226 surgeons. With Florida Hospital Tampa Institutional Review Board approval, the surgeons were queried before and immediately after the course, to assess their attitudes toward LESS surgery. Then, well after the course, the surgeons were contacted, repeatedly if necessary, to complete questionnaires.

Results:

Before the course, 82% of the surgeons undertook more than 10 laparoscopic operations per month. Immediately after the course, 86% were confident that they were prepared to perform LESS surgery. Months after the course, 77% of the respondents had adopted LESS surgery, primarily cholecystectomy; 59% had added 1 or more trocars in 0–20% of their procedures; and 73% held the opinion that operating room observation was the most helpful learning experience. Complications with LESS surgery were noted 12% of the time. Advantages of the technique were better cosmesis (58%) and patient satisfaction (38%). Disadvantages included risk of complications (37%) and higher technical demand (25%). Seventy-eight percent viewed LESS surgery as an advancement in surgical technique.

Conclusion:

In multifaceted product safety courses, operating room observation is thought to provide the most helpful instruction for those wanting to undertake LESS surgery. The procedure has been safely adopted by surgeons who frequently perform laparoscopies. The tradeoff is in performing a more difficult technique to obtain better cosmesis for the patient. We must continue to conduct critical evaluations of product safety courses for the introduction of new technology in surgery.     

Mechanical evaluation of three access devices for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery

Background

Many access devices have been developed for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) during recent years. However, investigations are needed to determine which port is most suitable for this relatively new technique. The aim of this study was to evaluate commonly used ports using mechanical approaches in a training simulator. Any port that required less force and shorter surgery times had superior maneuverability.

Methods

The following three commercially available access devices were evaluated: Multi-ports, TriPort, and single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) Port. A LESS mechanical evaluation platform was developed to investigate the forces that acted on the instruments in the ports while moving along horizontal and vertical axes. In addition, a strain–force measurement system was used to compare the average load on the ports when performing standard maneuvers. Additionally, the task completion time was recorded when the maneuvers in these ports were completed.

Results

During the horizontal displacement of the instrument, the traction forces of the Multi-ports were lower than those of the SILS Port, which were lower than those of the TriPort. The average traction forces were significantly different in pairwise multiple comparisons (P < 0.05). When the instrument was inserted into the ports, the vertical friction forces of the Multi-ports were the lowest and those of the TriPort were the highest. On extraction of the instrument, the friction forces of the Multi-ports remained the lowest, followed by those of the TriPort and SILS Port. There were statistically significant results among all the devices (P < 0.05). The average load required to perform the task was less for the SILS Port than that for the TriPort (P < 0.05). Similarly, the average load for the Multi-ports was significantly less than that for the TriPort (P < 0.001). The participants who used the Multi-ports had significantly faster task times than those who used the SILS Port or TriPort (P < 0.005).

Conclusions

Compared with the TriPort and SILS Port, the Multi-ports was associated with the least average load and the shortest task performance times in a training simulator. This study demonstrates that the Multi-ports may offer superior maneuverability for LESS.     

A Novel Robotic System for Single-port Urologic Surgery: First Clinical Investigation

Background

The idea of performing a laparoscopic procedure through a single abdominal incision was conceived with the aim of expediting postoperative recovery.

Objective

To determine the clinical feasibility and safety of single-port urologic procedures by using a novel robotic surgical system.

Design, setting, and participants

This was a prospective institutional review board–approved, Innovation, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term Study (IDEAL) phase 1 study. After enrollment, patients underwent a major urologic robotic single-port procedure over a 3-wk period in July 2010. The patients were followed for 3 yr postoperatively.

Intervention

Different types of urologic surgeries were performed using the da Vinci SP Surgical System. This system is intended to provide the same core clinical capabilities as the existing multiport da Vinci system, except that three articulating endoscopic instruments and an articulating endoscopic camera are inserted into the patient through a single robotic port.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

The main outcomes were the technical feasibility of the procedures (as measured by the rate of conversions) and the safety of the procedures (as measured by the incidence of perioperative complications). Secondary end points consisted of evaluating other key surgical perioperative outcomes as well as midterm functional and oncologic outcomes.

Results and limitations

A total of 19 patients were enrolled in the study. Eleven of them underwent radical prostatectomy; eight subjects underwent nephrectomy procedures (partial nephrectomy, four; radical nephrectomy, two; and simple nephrectomy, two). There were no conversions to alternative surgical approaches. Overall, two major (Clavien grade 3b) postoperative complications were observed in the radical prostatectomy group and none in the nephrectomy group. At 1-yr follow-up, one radical prostatectomy patient experienced biochemical recurrence, which was successfully treated with salvage radiation therapy. The median warm ischemia time for three of the partial nephrectomies was 38 min. At 3-yr follow-up all patients presented a preserved renal function; none had tumor recurrence. Study limitations include the small sample and the lack of a control group.

Conclusions

We describe the first clinical application of a novel robotic platform specifically designed for single-port urologic surgery. Major urologic procedures were successfully completed without conversions. Further assessment is warranted to corroborate these promising findings.

Patient summary

A novel purpose-built robotic system enables surgeons to perform safely and effectively a variety of major urologic procedures through a single small abdominal incision.

Trial registration

The study was registered on www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02136121).