Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

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

Key Takeaway
Consider RA-SPRP for shorter console time and hospital stay, though oncologic equivalence remains unproven in randomized trials.

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.

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.

What this means for you:
Single-port robotic surgery offers faster recovery with similar cancer outcomes compared to standard multiport approaches.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 1,997
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedJun 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
The emergence of extraperitoneal single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RA-SPRP) as a minimally invasive surgical approach has prompted comparisons with the well-established multi-port transperitoneal technique (RA-MPRP). This study aims to systematically review and analyze perioperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes between RA-SPRP and RA-MPRP. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420250648505). Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and others were searched up to April 2025. Comparative studies reporting relevant outcomes between RA-SPRP and RA-MPRP were included. Primary endpoints were positive surgical margins and biochemical recurrence. Secondary outcomes included operative time, console time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, complications, continence, erectile function, and catheter removal time. Methodological quality was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Seven studies comprising 1997 patients were included. RA-SPRP demonstrated a significantly shorter console time (MD: -83 minutes; 95% CI, -29.61 to -4.05; P < .05) and hospital stay (MD: -1.29 days; 95% CI, -2.55 to -0.02; P < .05). Time to catheter removal was also shorter in the single-port group (MD: -2.80 days; 95% CI, -2.98 to -2.62; P < .05). No significant differences were observed in operative time, estimated blood loss, positive surgical margins, biochemical recurrence, complication rates, continence, or erectile function. Study heterogeneity and methodological limitations-particularly the predominance of retrospective designs-warrant cautious interpretation. RA-SPRP appears to offer perioperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes comparable to RA-MPRP, with potential advantages in early recovery and shorter hospital stay. These findings support the feasibility of RA-SPRP, especially in select clinical contexts, but underscore the need for randomized controlled trials with standardized protocols to validate these observations.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.