Single Port Robotic Surgery in Urology

Abstract

Purpose

To provide a comprehensive review on the new da Vinci SP (single port) robotic surgical system. The published literature to date within urology and a description of the new system will be discussed.

Findings

There are currently no high-quality published studies with the SP robotic system. All studies are case series, many with 10 or fewer patients. However, all studies have found the SP system to be safe and feasible in performing most urological procedures.

Summary

Renal and pelvic surgery using the SP robotic system is safe and feasible in the hands of expert robotic surgeons. Long-term, high-quality data is lacking. While the current high price and the learning curve will limit the SP systems’ use in many health care systems, new updates and the release of robotic surgical systems from other developers may help drive down costs and encourage uptake.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.

    Advances in laparoscopic urology part I. History a...: Find It! Options [Internet]. [cited 2020 Jul 31]. Available from: http://resolver.ebscohost.com.foyer.swmed.edu/openurl?cusid=s9008684&sid=Entrez%3aPubMed&id=pmid%3a7908769&site=ftf-live

  2. 2.

    Rao PP, Rao PP, Bhagwat S. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery - current status and controversies [Internet]. Vol. 7, J Minimal Access Surg. Wolters Kluwer -- Medknow Publications; 2011 [cited 2020 Jul 31]. p. 6–16. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC3002008/?report = abstract

  3. 3.

    Vickers AJ, Savage CJ, Hruza M, Tuerk I, Koenig P, Martínez-Piñeiro L, et al. The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(5):475–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.••

    Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016;388(10049):1057–66 Phase 3 RCT comparing short term functional and oncologic outcomes of robotic and open radical prostatectomy.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Leow JJ, Chang SL, Meyer CP, Wang Y, Hanske J, Sammon JD, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a contemporary analysis of an all-payer discharge database. Eur Urol [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 Jul 31];70(5):837–45. Available from: http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302283816001639/fulltext

  6. 6.

    White MA, Haber GP, Autorino R, Khanna R, Forest S, Yang B, et al. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site radical prostatectomy: technique and early outcomes. Eur Urol [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2020 Jul 31];58(4):544–50. Available from: http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302283810006032/fulltext

  7. 7.

    Lobe T. DA VINCI SP SURGICAL SYSTEM, ENDOWRIST SP INSTRUMENTS, AND ACCESSORIES. SAGES. 2019.

  8. 8.

    Shin TY, Lim SK, Komninos C, Kim DW, Han WK, Hong SJ, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) reduces postoperative wound pain without a rise in complication rates. BJU Int [Internet]. 2014 1 [cited 2020 Jul 31];114(4):555–61. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/bju.12783

  9. 9.

    Fan X, Lin T, Xu K, Yin Z, Huang H, Dong W, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy compared with conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies [Internet]. Vol. 62, Eur Urol. Elsevier; 2012 [cited 2020 Jul 31]. p. 601–12. Available from: http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302283812006392/fulltext

  10. 10.

    Brandao LF, Laydner H, Zargar H, Torricelli F, Andreoni C, Kaouk J, et al. Laparoendoscopic single site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for transperitoneal pyeloplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis [Internet]. Vol. 7, Urology Annals. Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications; 2015 [cited 2020 Jul 31]. p. 289–96. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC4518361/?report = abstract

  11. 11.

    Autorino R, Brandao LF, Sankari B, Zargar H, Laydner H, Akça O, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) vs laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2020 Jul 31];115(2):206–15. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/bju.12724

  12. 12.

    Li M, Wang Z, Li H. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery varicocelectomy versus conventional laparoscopic varicocele ligation: a meta-analysis. J Int Med Res [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 Jul 31];44(5):985–93. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC5536546/?report = abstract

  13. 13.

    Holsinger FC, Magnuson JS, Weinstein GS, Chan JYK, Starmer HM, Tsang RKY, et al. A next-generation single-port robotic surgical system for transoral robotic surgery: results from prospective nonrandomized clinical trials. JAMA Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 31];145(11):1027–34. Available from: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/fullarticle/2749803

  14. 14.

    Chan JYK, Tsang RK, Holsinger FC, Tong MCF, Ng CWK, Chiu PWY, et al. Prospective clinical trial to evaluate safety and feasibility of using a single port flexible robotic system for transoral head and neck surgery. Oral Oncology. 2019;94:101–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kaouk JH, Goel RK, Haber GP, Crouzet S, Stein RJ. Robotic single-port transumbilical surgery in humans: initial report. BJU Int [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2020 Aug 1];103(3):366–9. Available from: https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07949.x

  16. 16.

    Joseph RA, Goh AC, Cuevas SP, Donovan MA, Kauffman MG, Salas NA, et al. “Chopstick” surgery: a novel technique improves surgeon performance and eliminates arm collision in robotic single-incision laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2020 Aug 1];24(6):1331–5. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-009-0769-8

  17. 17.

    Arkoncel FRP, Lee JW, Rha KH, Han WK, Jeoung HB, Oh CK. Two-port robot-assisted vs standard robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison. Urology [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2020 Aug 1];78(3):581–5. Available from: http://www.goldjournal.net/article/S0090429510019461/fulltext

  18. 18.

    White MA, Autorino R, Spana G, Laydner H, Hillyer SP, Khanna R, et al. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy: surgical technique and comparative outcomes. Eur Urol [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2020 Aug 1];59(5):815–22. Available from: http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302283811001217/fulltext

  19. 19.

    Olweny EO, Park SK, Tan YK, Gurbuz C, Cadeddu JA, Best SL. Perioperative comparison of robotic assisted laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) pyeloplasty versus conventional LESS pyeloplasty. Eur Urol [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2020 Aug 1];61(2):410–4. Available from: http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302283811011304/fulltext

  20. 20.

    Ramirez D, Maurice MJ, Kaouk JH. Robotic single-port surgery: paving the way for the future [Internet]. Vol. 95, Urology. Elsevier Inc.; 2016 [cited 2020 Aug 1]. p. 5–10. Available from: http://www.goldjournal.net/article/S0090429516302072/fulltext

  21. 21.

    Janetschek G. Robotics: Will they give a new kick to single-site surgery? [Internet]. Vol. 66, Eur Urol. Elsevier; 2014 [cited 2020 Aug 1]. p. 1044–5. Available from: http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302283814006812/fulltext

  22. 22.

    • Kaouk J, Garisto J, Eltemamy M, Bertolo R. Pure single-site robot-assisted partial nephrectomy using the sp surgical system: initial clinical experience. Urology [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 31];124:282–5. Available from: http://www.goldjournal.net/article/S0090429518312524/fulltext. First publication about SP partial nephrectomy.

  23. 23.

    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The clavien-dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience [Internet]. Vol. 250, Annals of Surgery. Ann Surg; 2009 [cited 2020 Jul 31]. p. 187–96. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19638912/

  24. 24.

    Kaouk JH, Bertolo R. Single-site robotic platform in clinical practice: first cases in the USA. Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica. 2019;71(3):294–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Kang SK, Jang WS, Kim SW, Kim SH, Han SW, Lee YS. Robot-assisted laparoscopic single-port pyeloplasty using the da Vinci SP® system: initial experience with a pediatric patient. J Pediatr Urol [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 31];15(5):576–7. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31570233/

  26. 26.••

    Kaouk J, Bertolo R, Eltemamy M, Garisto J. Single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: first clinical experience using the SP surgical system. Urology [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 31];124:309. Available from: http://www.goldjournal.net/article/S0090429518311117/fulltext. First published clinical experience with the SP robotic system. Case series of all cases performed the first 10 days after instillation. Conclude that the SP surgery is safe and feasible in expert robotic hands.

  27. 27.

    Kaouk J, Garisto J, Bertolo R. Robotic urologic surgical interventions performed with the single port dedicated platform: first clinical investigation. Eur Urol [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 31];75(4):684–91. Available from: http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302283818309436/fulltext

  28. 28.

    Dobbs RW, Halgrimson WR, Madueke I, Vigneswaran HT, Wilson JO, Crivellaro S. Single-port robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience and technique with the da Vinci ® SP platform. BJU Int [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Aug 1];124(6):1022–7. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/bju.14864

  29. 29.

    Ng C, Teoh JY, Chiu PK, Yee C, Chan C, Hou SS, et al. Robot-assisted single-port radical prostatectomy: a phase 1 clinical study. Int J Urol [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Aug 1];26(9):878–83. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/iju.14044

  30. 30.•

    Agarwal DK, Sharma V, Toussi A, Viers BR, Tollefson MK, Gettman MT, et al. Initial experience with da Vinci single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomies. European Urology [Internet]. 2020 Mar 1 [cited 2020 Jul 31];77(3):373–9. Available from: http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302283819302805/fulltext. Largest case series of SP RALP cases published to date.

  31. 31.

    Lai A, Dobbs RW, Talamini S, Halgrimson WR, Wilson JO, Vigneswaran HT, et al. Single port robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review [Internet]. Vol. 9, Translat Androl Urol. AME Publishing Company; 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 31]. p. 898–905. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7215004/?report = abstract

  32. 32.••

    Saidian A, Fang AM, Hakim O, Magi-Galluzzi C, Nix JW, Rais-Bahrami S. Perioperative outcomes of single vs multi-port robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a single institutional experience. J Urol [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 31]; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000811, 204, 490, 495 The first study to compare outcomes between multiarm and single port RALP. Outcomes were comparable between the two.

  33. 33.

    Steinberg RL, Johnson BA, Meskawi M, Gettman MT, Cadeddu JA. Magnet-assisted robotic prostatectomy using the da Vinci SP robot: an initial case series. J Endourol [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 31];33(10):829–34. Available from: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/end.2019.0263

  34. 34.

    Kaouk J, Valero R, Sawczyn G, Garisto J. Extraperitoneal single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: initial experience and description of technique. BJU Int [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 31];125(1):182–9. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/bju.14885

  35. 35.

    Maurice MJ, Kaouk JH. Single-port robot-assisted perineal prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: step-by-step technique in a cadaveric model. J Endourol [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2020 Jul 31];32(S1):S-93-S-96. Available from: http://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/end.2017.0707

  36. 36.

    Sorokin I, Sundaram V, Singla N, Walker J, Margulis V, Roehrborn C, et al. Robot-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia in large glands: a propensity score–matched comparison of perioperative and short-term outcomes. J Endourol [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 Jul 31];31(11):1164–9. Available from: http://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/end.2017.0489

  37. 37.

    Autorino R, Zargar H, Mariano MB, Sanchez-Salas R, Sotelo RJ, Chlosta PL, et al. Perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic simple prostatectomy: a european-American multi-institutional analysis. Eur Urol [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2020 Jul 31];68(1):86–94. Available from: http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302283814012366/fulltext

  38. 38.

    Steinberg RL, Passoni N, Garbens A, Johnson BA, Gahan JC. Initial experience with extraperitoneal robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy using the da Vinci SP surgical system. J Robot Surg [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 31];14(4):601–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01029-7

  39. 39.

    Kaouk J, Sawczyn G, Wilson C, Aminsharifi A, Fareed K, Garisto J, et al. Single-port percutaneous transvesical simple prostatectomy using the sp robotic system: initial clinical experience. Urology [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 31];141:173–7. Available from: http://www.goldjournal.net/article/S0090429520302612/fulltext

  40. 40.

    Kaouk J, Garisto J, Eltemamy M, Bertolo R. Single-port robotic intracorporeal ileal conduit urinary diversion during radical cystectomy using the SP surgical system: step-by-step technique. Urology [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 31];130:196–200. Available from: http://www.goldjournal.net/article/S0090429519303279/fulltext

  41. 41.

    Zhang M, Thomas D, Salama G, Ahmed M. Single port robotic radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion: a case series and review [Internet]. Vol. 9, Translat Androl Urol. AME Publishing Company; 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 31]. p. 925–30. Available from: http://tau.amegroups.com/article/view/37475/30269

  42. 42.

    Hebert KJ, Joseph J, Gettman M, Tollefson M, Frank I, Viers BR. Technical considerations of single port ureteroneocystostomy utilizing da Vinci SP platform. Urology [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 31];129:236. Available from: http://www.goldjournal.net/article/S0090429519303206/fulltext

  43. 43.

    Kaouk JH, Garisto J, Eltemamy M, Bertolo R. Robot-assisted surgery for benign distal ureteral strictures: step-by-step technique using the SP ® surgical system. BJU Int [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 31];123(4):733–9. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/bju.14635

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey A. Cadeddu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

All reported studies/experiments with human or animal subjects performed by the authors have been previously published and complied with all applicable ethical standards (including the Helsinki declaration and its amendments, institutional/national research committee standards, and international/national/institutional guidelines).

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the “Topical Collection on Surgery.”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garbens, A., Morgan, T. & Cadeddu, J.A. Single Port Robotic Surgery in Urology. Curr Urol Rep 22, 22 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-021-01040-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Single port robotic surgery
  • SP partial nephrectomy
  • SP pyeloplasty
  • SP radical prostatectomy, SP simple prostatectomy and SP radical cystectomy
  • Robotic technology