Jeffrey Law1, Neal Rowe2, Jason Archambault3, Sofia Nastis1, Alp Sener3, Patrick P Luke3. 1. Western University Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry; 2. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 3. Western University Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry;; Department of Surgery, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We compared the outcomes of single-incision, robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty vs. multiple-incision pyeloplasty using the da Vinci robotic system. METHODS: We reviewed all consecutive robotic pyeloplasties by a single surgeon from January 2011 to August 2015. A total of 30 procedures were performed (16 single:14 multi-port). Two different single-port devices were compared: the GelPort (Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA) and the Intuitive single-site access port (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). RESULTS: Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. Mean operating time was similar among the single and multi-port groups (225.2 min vs. 198.9 minutes [p=0.33]). There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay in either group (86.2 hr vs. 93.2 hr [p=0.76]). There was no difference in success rates or postoperative complications among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Single-port robotic pyeloplasty is non-inferior to multiple-incision robotic surgery in terms of operative times, hospitalization time, success rates, and complications. Verifying these results with larger cohorts is required prior to the wide adoption of this technique. Ongoing objective measurements of cosmesis and patient satisfaction are being evaluated.
INTRODUCTION: We compared the outcomes of single-incision, robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty vs. multiple-incision pyeloplasty using the da Vinci robotic system. METHODS: We reviewed all consecutive robotic pyeloplasties by a single surgeon from January 2011 to August 2015. A total of 30 procedures were performed (16 single:14 multi-port). Two different single-port devices were compared: the GelPort (Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA) and the Intuitive single-site access port (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). RESULTS:Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. Mean operating time was similar among the single and multi-port groups (225.2 min vs. 198.9 minutes [p=0.33]). There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay in either group (86.2 hr vs. 93.2 hr [p=0.76]). There was no difference in success rates or postoperative complications among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Single-port robotic pyeloplasty is non-inferior to multiple-incision robotic surgery in terms of operative times, hospitalization time, success rates, and complications. Verifying these results with larger cohorts is required prior to the wide adoption of this technique. Ongoing objective measurements of cosmesis and patient satisfaction are being evaluated.
Authors: Ephrem O Olweny; Samuel K Park; Yung K Tan; Cenk Gurbuz; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Sara L Best Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-10-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Brian R Harrow; Aditya Bagrodia; Ephrem O Olweny; Stephen Faddegon; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Jeffrey C Gahan Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-02-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Robert J Stein; Wesley M White; Raj K Goel; Brian H Irwin; George Pascal Haber; Jihad H Kaouk Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-03-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: S Cianci; A Rosati; V Rumolo; S Gueli Alletti; V Gallotta; L C Turco; G Corrado; G Vizzielli; A Fagotti; F Fanfani; G Scambia; S Uccella Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.352