Implementation of single-port robotic urologic surgery: experience at a large academic center
The Single-Port (SP) robotic system is increasingly being implemented in the United States, allowing for several minimally invasive urologic procedures to be performed. The present study aims to describe our single-center experience since the adoption of the SP platform. We retrospectively collected...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of robotic surgery 2024-03, Vol.18 (1), p.119, Article 119 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 119 |
| container_title | Journal of robotic surgery |
| container_volume | 18 |
| creator | Ditonno, Francesco Franco, Antonio Licari, Leslie Claire Bologna, Eugenio Manfredi, Celeste Katz, David O. Huang, Jonathan H. Latchamsetty, Kalyan C. Coogan, Christopher L. Cherullo, Edward E. Chow, Alexander K. Vourganti, Srinivas Autorino, Riccardo |
| description | The Single-Port (SP) robotic system is increasingly being implemented in the United States, allowing for several minimally invasive urologic procedures to be performed. The present study aims to describe our single-center experience since the adoption of the SP platform. We retrospectively collected and analyzed consecutive SP cases performed at a major teaching hospital in the Midwest (Rush University Medical Center) from December 2020 to December 2023. Demographic variables were collected. Surgical and pathological outcomes were analyzed in the overall cohort and for each type of procedure. The study timeframe was divided into two periods to assess the evolution of SP technical features over time. In total, 160 procedures were performed, with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) being the most common (49.4%). Overall, 54.4% of the procedures were extraperitoneal, with a significantly higher adoption of this approach in the second half of the study period (30% vs 74.3%,
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11701-024-01884-z |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2958291578</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2958291578</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-1e395732cc18d41bc5bc0b5cf4b80d69ab6d7bd25dddae19a721e7bff366c9813</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LHzEQh4MovrVfoAcJePGyNZNsNllvRdQKQi_tUUJeZv-s7G62yS6on77Rv7Wlh55mYJ75zfAQ8gnYZ2BMnWcAxaBivK4YaF1XzzvkEHQjKl63sPtXf0COcn5gTCopYJ8cCF23nDFxSO5vx3nAEafFLn2caOxo7qfNgNUc00JTdHHpPV1THOKmNHlNG0xPFxQfZ0w9Th6pXailgy0Dar0NOBbOl0RMH8heZ4eMH9_qMflxffX98mt19-3m9vLLXeWFkksFKFqpBPcedKjBeek8c9J3tdMsNK11TVAucBlCsAitVRxQua4TTeNbDeKYnG1z5xR_rpgXM_bZ4zDYCeOaDW-l5i1IpQt6-g_6ENc0le9eKKWZUI0qFN9SPsWcE3ZmTv1o05MBZl7km618U-SbV_nmuSydvEWvbsTwvvLbdgHEFshlNBWPf27_J_YXrVuRKQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2957803767</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Implementation of single-port robotic urologic surgery: experience at a large academic center</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Ditonno, Francesco ; Franco, Antonio ; Licari, Leslie Claire ; Bologna, Eugenio ; Manfredi, Celeste ; Katz, David O. ; Huang, Jonathan H. ; Latchamsetty, Kalyan C. ; Coogan, Christopher L. ; Cherullo, Edward E. ; Chow, Alexander K. ; Vourganti, Srinivas ; Autorino, Riccardo</creator><creatorcontrib>Ditonno, Francesco ; Franco, Antonio ; Licari, Leslie Claire ; Bologna, Eugenio ; Manfredi, Celeste ; Katz, David O. ; Huang, Jonathan H. ; Latchamsetty, Kalyan C. ; Coogan, Christopher L. ; Cherullo, Edward E. ; Chow, Alexander K. ; Vourganti, Srinivas ; Autorino, Riccardo</creatorcontrib><description>The Single-Port (SP) robotic system is increasingly being implemented in the United States, allowing for several minimally invasive urologic procedures to be performed. The present study aims to describe our single-center experience since the adoption of the SP platform. We retrospectively collected and analyzed consecutive SP cases performed at a major teaching hospital in the Midwest (Rush University Medical Center) from December 2020 to December 2023. Demographic variables were collected. Surgical and pathological outcomes were analyzed in the overall cohort and for each type of procedure. The study timeframe was divided into two periods to assess the evolution of SP technical features over time. In total, 160 procedures were performed, with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) being the most common (49.4%). Overall, 54.4% of the procedures were extraperitoneal, with a significantly higher adoption of this approach in the second half of the study period (30% vs 74.3%,
p
< 0.001). A “plus one” assistant port was adopted in 38.1% of cases, with a shift towards a “pure” single-port surgery in the most recent procedures (21.1% vs 76.7%,
p
< 0.001). The median LOS was 33.5 h (30–48), with a rate of any grade and CD ≥ 3 postoperative complications of 9.4% and 2.5%, respectively, and a 30-day readmission rate of 1.9%. SP robotic surgery can be safely and effectively implemented for various urologic procedures. With increasing experience, the SP platform allows shifting away from transperitoneal procedures, potentially minimizing postoperative pain, and shortening hospital stay and postoperative recovery.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1863-2491</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1863-2483</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1863-2491</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-01884-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38492003</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Springer London</publisher><subject>Bladder ; Cameras ; Demographic variables ; Dissection ; Health care facilities ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Minimally Invasive Surgery ; Patients ; Prostate ; Prostatectomy - methods ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic surgery ; Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods ; Robotics ; Statistical analysis ; Suctioning ; Surgeons ; Surgery ; Surgical outcomes ; Sutures ; Tumors ; Urologic Surgical Procedures ; Urological surgery ; Urology</subject><ispartof>Journal of robotic surgery, 2024-03, Vol.18 (1), p.119, Article 119</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024 Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Nature B.V. Dec 2024</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-1e395732cc18d41bc5bc0b5cf4b80d69ab6d7bd25dddae19a721e7bff366c9813</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-1e395732cc18d41bc5bc0b5cf4b80d69ab6d7bd25dddae19a721e7bff366c9813</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11701-024-01884-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11701-024-01884-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38492003$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ditonno, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franco, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Licari, Leslie Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bologna, Eugenio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manfredi, Celeste</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Katz, David O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Jonathan H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Latchamsetty, Kalyan C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coogan, Christopher L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cherullo, Edward E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chow, Alexander K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vourganti, Srinivas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Autorino, Riccardo</creatorcontrib><title>Implementation of single-port robotic urologic surgery: experience at a large academic center</title><title>Journal of robotic surgery</title><addtitle>J Robotic Surg</addtitle><addtitle>J Robot Surg</addtitle><description>The Single-Port (SP) robotic system is increasingly being implemented in the United States, allowing for several minimally invasive urologic procedures to be performed. The present study aims to describe our single-center experience since the adoption of the SP platform. We retrospectively collected and analyzed consecutive SP cases performed at a major teaching hospital in the Midwest (Rush University Medical Center) from December 2020 to December 2023. Demographic variables were collected. Surgical and pathological outcomes were analyzed in the overall cohort and for each type of procedure. The study timeframe was divided into two periods to assess the evolution of SP technical features over time. In total, 160 procedures were performed, with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) being the most common (49.4%). Overall, 54.4% of the procedures were extraperitoneal, with a significantly higher adoption of this approach in the second half of the study period (30% vs 74.3%,
p
< 0.001). A “plus one” assistant port was adopted in 38.1% of cases, with a shift towards a “pure” single-port surgery in the most recent procedures (21.1% vs 76.7%,
p
< 0.001). The median LOS was 33.5 h (30–48), with a rate of any grade and CD ≥ 3 postoperative complications of 9.4% and 2.5%, respectively, and a 30-day readmission rate of 1.9%. SP robotic surgery can be safely and effectively implemented for various urologic procedures. With increasing experience, the SP platform allows shifting away from transperitoneal procedures, potentially minimizing postoperative pain, and shortening hospital stay and postoperative recovery.</description><subject>Bladder</subject><subject>Cameras</subject><subject>Demographic variables</subject><subject>Dissection</subject><subject>Health care facilities</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Minimally Invasive Surgery</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prostate</subject><subject>Prostatectomy - methods</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Robotic surgery</subject><subject>Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Robotics</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Suctioning</subject><subject>Surgeons</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical outcomes</subject><subject>Sutures</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>Urologic Surgical Procedures</subject><subject>Urological surgery</subject><subject>Urology</subject><issn>1863-2491</issn><issn>1863-2483</issn><issn>1863-2491</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LHzEQh4MovrVfoAcJePGyNZNsNllvRdQKQi_tUUJeZv-s7G62yS6on77Rv7Wlh55mYJ75zfAQ8gnYZ2BMnWcAxaBivK4YaF1XzzvkEHQjKl63sPtXf0COcn5gTCopYJ8cCF23nDFxSO5vx3nAEafFLn2caOxo7qfNgNUc00JTdHHpPV1THOKmNHlNG0xPFxQfZ0w9Th6pXailgy0Dar0NOBbOl0RMH8heZ4eMH9_qMflxffX98mt19-3m9vLLXeWFkksFKFqpBPcedKjBeek8c9J3tdMsNK11TVAucBlCsAitVRxQua4TTeNbDeKYnG1z5xR_rpgXM_bZ4zDYCeOaDW-l5i1IpQt6-g_6ENc0le9eKKWZUI0qFN9SPsWcE3ZmTv1o05MBZl7km618U-SbV_nmuSydvEWvbsTwvvLbdgHEFshlNBWPf27_J_YXrVuRKQ</recordid><startdate>20240316</startdate><enddate>20240316</enddate><creator>Ditonno, Francesco</creator><creator>Franco, Antonio</creator><creator>Licari, Leslie Claire</creator><creator>Bologna, Eugenio</creator><creator>Manfredi, Celeste</creator><creator>Katz, David O.</creator><creator>Huang, Jonathan H.</creator><creator>Latchamsetty, Kalyan C.</creator><creator>Coogan, Christopher L.</creator><creator>Cherullo, Edward E.</creator><creator>Chow, Alexander K.</creator><creator>Vourganti, Srinivas</creator><creator>Autorino, Riccardo</creator><general>Springer London</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20240316</creationdate><title>Implementation of single-port robotic urologic surgery: experience at a large academic center</title><author>Ditonno, Francesco ; Franco, Antonio ; Licari, Leslie Claire ; Bologna, Eugenio ; Manfredi, Celeste ; Katz, David O. ; Huang, Jonathan H. ; Latchamsetty, Kalyan C. ; Coogan, Christopher L. ; Cherullo, Edward E. ; Chow, Alexander K. ; Vourganti, Srinivas ; Autorino, Riccardo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-1e395732cc18d41bc5bc0b5cf4b80d69ab6d7bd25dddae19a721e7bff366c9813</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Bladder</topic><topic>Cameras</topic><topic>Demographic variables</topic><topic>Dissection</topic><topic>Health care facilities</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Minimally Invasive Surgery</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prostate</topic><topic>Prostatectomy - methods</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Robotic surgery</topic><topic>Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Robotics</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Suctioning</topic><topic>Surgeons</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical outcomes</topic><topic>Sutures</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>Urologic Surgical Procedures</topic><topic>Urological surgery</topic><topic>Urology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ditonno, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franco, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Licari, Leslie Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bologna, Eugenio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manfredi, Celeste</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Katz, David O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Jonathan H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Latchamsetty, Kalyan C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coogan, Christopher L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cherullo, Edward E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chow, Alexander K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vourganti, Srinivas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Autorino, Riccardo</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of robotic surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ditonno, Francesco</au><au>Franco, Antonio</au><au>Licari, Leslie Claire</au><au>Bologna, Eugenio</au><au>Manfredi, Celeste</au><au>Katz, David O.</au><au>Huang, Jonathan H.</au><au>Latchamsetty, Kalyan C.</au><au>Coogan, Christopher L.</au><au>Cherullo, Edward E.</au><au>Chow, Alexander K.</au><au>Vourganti, Srinivas</au><au>Autorino, Riccardo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Implementation of single-port robotic urologic surgery: experience at a large academic center</atitle><jtitle>Journal of robotic surgery</jtitle><stitle>J Robotic Surg</stitle><addtitle>J Robot Surg</addtitle><date>2024-03-16</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>119</spage><pages>119-</pages><artnum>119</artnum><issn>1863-2491</issn><issn>1863-2483</issn><eissn>1863-2491</eissn><abstract>The Single-Port (SP) robotic system is increasingly being implemented in the United States, allowing for several minimally invasive urologic procedures to be performed. The present study aims to describe our single-center experience since the adoption of the SP platform. We retrospectively collected and analyzed consecutive SP cases performed at a major teaching hospital in the Midwest (Rush University Medical Center) from December 2020 to December 2023. Demographic variables were collected. Surgical and pathological outcomes were analyzed in the overall cohort and for each type of procedure. The study timeframe was divided into two periods to assess the evolution of SP technical features over time. In total, 160 procedures were performed, with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) being the most common (49.4%). Overall, 54.4% of the procedures were extraperitoneal, with a significantly higher adoption of this approach in the second half of the study period (30% vs 74.3%,
p
< 0.001). A “plus one” assistant port was adopted in 38.1% of cases, with a shift towards a “pure” single-port surgery in the most recent procedures (21.1% vs 76.7%,
p
< 0.001). The median LOS was 33.5 h (30–48), with a rate of any grade and CD ≥ 3 postoperative complications of 9.4% and 2.5%, respectively, and a 30-day readmission rate of 1.9%. SP robotic surgery can be safely and effectively implemented for various urologic procedures. With increasing experience, the SP platform allows shifting away from transperitoneal procedures, potentially minimizing postoperative pain, and shortening hospital stay and postoperative recovery.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Springer London</pub><pmid>38492003</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11701-024-01884-z</doi></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1863-2491 |
| ispartof | Journal of robotic surgery, 2024-03, Vol.18 (1), p.119, Article 119 |
| issn | 1863-2491 1863-2483 1863-2491 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2958291578 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals |
| subjects | Bladder Cameras Demographic variables Dissection Health care facilities Hospitals Humans Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Minimally Invasive Surgery Patients Prostate Prostatectomy - methods Retrospective Studies Robotic surgery Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods Robotics Statistical analysis Suctioning Surgeons Surgery Surgical outcomes Sutures Tumors Urologic Surgical Procedures Urological surgery Urology |
| title | Implementation of single-port robotic urologic surgery: experience at a large academic center |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T05%3A07%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Implementation%20of%20single-port%20robotic%20urologic%20surgery:%20experience%20at%20a%20large%20academic%20center&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20robotic%20surgery&rft.au=Ditonno,%20Francesco&rft.date=2024-03-16&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=119&rft.pages=119-&rft.artnum=119&rft.issn=1863-2491&rft.eissn=1863-2491&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11701-024-01884-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2958291578%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2957803767&rft_id=info:pmid/38492003&rfr_iscdi=true |