You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Oncology1 Apr 2010V478 SINGLE-PORT ROBOTIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY Michael A. White, Georges-Pascal Haber, Rakesh Khanna, Riccardo Autorino, Sylvain Forest, Robert J. Stein, and Jihad H. Kaouk Michael A. WhiteMichael A. White More articles by this author , Georges-Pascal HaberGeorges-Pascal Haber More articles by this author , Rakesh KhannaRakesh Khanna More articles by this author , Riccardo AutorinoRiccardo Autorino More articles by this author , Sylvain ForestSylvain Forest More articles by this author , Robert J. SteinRobert J. Stein More articles by this author , and Jihad H. KaoukJihad H. Kaouk More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.552AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Minimally invasive urology is rapidly advancing and Single-site surgery is being explored clinically. These procedures are technically challenging and require an experienced laparoscopic surgeon. The da Vinci surgical system, with its Endowrist technology, three-dimensional visualization, motion scaling, and tremor filtration, has recently been introduced to single-site surgery with the aim of reducing challenges posed by single-site surgery. METHODS Between December of 2008 and October of 2009 we performed seven single-port robotic radical prostatectomies. We demonstrate the detailed steps of this procedure in video format including: 1) Placement of the single port access device and da Vinci robot 2) Description of the necessary equipment 3) Mobilization of the bladder 4) Incision of the endopelvic fascia 5) Ligation of the dorsal venous complex 6) Dissection of the bladder neck 7) Dissection of the seminal vesicles 8) Control of the vascular pedicles 9) Antegrade dissection of the prostate from the rectum 10) Transection of the dorsal venous complex and urethra 11) Entrapment of the prostate 12) Pelvic lymph node dissection and 13) Vesico-urethral anastamosis. Additionally we present our cumulative outcomes including: mean operative time, blood loss, pathology, margin status, length of stay, complications, and recurrence status. RESULTS The mean age of the patients was 56 years while the mean preoperative PSA was 3.9. The patients had a mean BMI of 25.6 kg/m2 and a SHIM score of 12. All patients had clinical T1c adenocarcinoma of the prostate and there were varying Gleason scores: 3+3 (2), 3+4 (4), 4+4 (1). The mean operative time was 200 minutes with an EBL of 200 ml. The mean length of stay was 3.4 days. The postoperative pathologic staging consisted of: T2a (1), T2b (3), T2c (3). Two out of the seven patients had focally positive margins. CONCLUSIONS The potential advantages of single port robotic radical prostatectomy include a smaller scar, minimally invasive access, and less pain during early and long-term follow-up. Prospective randomized studies are necessary to compare postoperative outcomes between single-port robotic radical prostatectomy and traditional robotic radical prostatectomy. Cleveland, OH© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 183Issue 4SApril 2010Page: e188 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Michael A. White More articles by this author Georges-Pascal Haber More articles by this author Rakesh Khanna More articles by this author Riccardo Autorino More articles by this author Sylvain Forest More articles by this author Robert J. Stein More articles by this author Jihad H. Kaouk More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...