You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized: Surgical Therapy II (PD43)1 Apr 2020PD43-03 PERIOPERATIVE OUTCOMES BETWEEN SINGLE-PORT AND MULTI-PORT ROBOTIC ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: A SINGLE INSTITUTIONAL EXPERIENCE Ava Saidian*, Andrew Fang, Ornin Hakim, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi, Jeffrey Nix, and Soroush Rais-Bahrami Ava Saidian*Ava Saidian* More articles by this author , Andrew FangAndrew Fang More articles by this author , Ornin HakimOrnin Hakim More articles by this author , Cristina Magi-GalluzziCristina Magi-Galluzzi More articles by this author , Jeffrey NixJeffrey Nix More articles by this author , and Soroush Rais-BahramiSoroush Rais-Bahrami More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000930.03AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Surgical approaches to the radical prostatectomy have evolved over the past few decades due to advances in minimally invasive surgery, with the most common approach involving multi-port (MP) robotic systems including the da Vinci® SI and XI (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, Ca, USA) robotic platforms. The recent FDA approval of the first single-port (SP) robotic system, the da Vinci® SP robotic platform, has led to a few small cohort studies supporting its safety and feasibility for RP in patients with prostate cancer. However, there is no data on its perioperative outcomes compared to the standard MP robotic approach. METHODS: All patients who underwent radical prostatectomy by two high-volume robotic prostate surgeons at our institution between October 2018 and June 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. All patient’s preoperative demographic data, operative reports, anesthesia reports, and perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed using t-test, chi-square, and Fischer exact statistical measures. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients who underwent RP at our institution were included in our study with 47 patients using the SP approach and 48 with the MP approach. Demographic and clinical parameters including age, body mass index (BMI), history of prior abdominal surgery, and biopsy grade group were similar between the two groups. No significant differences in estimated blood loss (169.2±114.2 versus 157.7±125.4 ml, p=0.64), operative time (255.9±44.1 versus 274.7±50.4 ml, p=0.06), length of hospitalization (1.1±0.5 versus 1.4±1.1 days, p=0.17), and rate of perioperative inpatient Clavien-Dindo complications ≥2 (4.3% versus 6.3 % p=0.66) were noted between the SP and MP approaches, respectively. Furthermore, no significant difference was noted in pathologic positive margin rates between the SP and MP approaches (21.3% and 27.1%, p=0.51). CONCLUSIONS: The da Vinci SP robotic system is not only a safe and feasible approach to RP but has comparable operative and perioperative outcomes to the standard MP robotic approach. However, further research with longer follow-up and larger population data is needed to establish noninferiority between the two robotic approaches. Source of Funding: None © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e900-e901 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Ava Saidian* More articles by this author Andrew Fang More articles by this author Ornin Hakim More articles by this author Cristina Magi-Galluzzi More articles by this author Jeffrey Nix More articles by this author Soroush Rais-Bahrami More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...