Men facing prostate cancer surgery often worry about how long they will be in the hospital and how quickly they can return to normal life. A large review looked at 1,997 patients who had robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. The team compared a newer single-port technique to the standard multiport method. They found that the single-port approach led to significantly shorter time in the operating room console and a hospital stay that was about one and a quarter days shorter. Patients also removed their catheter nearly three days sooner with the single-port method. These are important details for anyone planning their recovery. The single-port surgery did not result in more complications or worse cancer control. The chance of leaving cancer cells behind or the cancer returning was the same for both groups. Functioning after surgery, including bladder control and erections, was also comparable between the two techniques. However, the review noted that most of the data came from older studies with different designs. This mix of study types makes it hard to draw firm conclusions. The findings suggest the newer single-port method is a viable option for select patients. But doctors need more rigorous trials to confirm these results before changing standard practice.
Extraperitoneal single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy shortens console time by 83 minutes versus multiport transperitoneal approaches in 1997 patientsSingle-port robotic prostate surgery may speed recovery without hurting cancer outcomes
AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared extraperitoneal single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RA-SPRP) with multiport transperitoneal robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RA-MPRP) in a population of 1997 patients undergoing prostatectomy. The primary outcomes assessed included positive surgical margins and biochemical recurrence, while secondary outcomes covered operative metrics and functional recovery.
Significant differences favored RA-SPRP for console time, which was 83 minutes shorter (MD: -83 minutes; 95% CI, -29.61 to -4.05; P < .05). Hospital stay was also significantly shorter by 1.29 days (MD: -1.29 days; 95% CI, -2.55 to -0.02; P < .05). Time to catheter removal was shorter by 2.80 days (MD: -2.80 days; 95% CI, -2.98 to -2.62; P < .05). No significant differences were observed for operative time, estimated blood loss, positive surgical margins, biochemical recurrence, complication rates, continence, or erectile function.
The authors highlight study heterogeneity and methodological limitations, particularly the predominance of retrospective designs. These factors warrant cautious interpretation of the findings. The review supports the feasibility of RA-SPRP in select clinical contexts but underscores the need for randomized controlled trials with standardized protocols to validate these observations regarding perioperative and functional outcomes.