SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.11 número3Estarão a Disfunção Sexual Feminina e a Contraceção Hormonal Interligadas?Consultas em Série: uma Inevitabilidade à Procura de Solução índice de autoresíndice de assuntosPesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Journal

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • Não possue artigos similaresSimilares em SciELO

Compartilhar


Gazeta Médica

versão impressa ISSN 2183-8135versão On-line ISSN 2184-0628

Gaz Med vol.11 no.3 Queluz set. 2024  Epub 27-Set-2024

https://doi.org/10.29315/gm.v1i1.952 

Artigo de perspetiva

From LESS to Single Port (SP) Robotic Urologic Surgery: Minimizing Minimally Invasive Surgery

Da LESS à Cirurgia Urológica Robótica por Porta Única: Minimizando a Cirurgia Minimamente Invasiva

Riccardo Autorino1 
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7045-7725

Estevão A. R. Lima2  3 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1962-7968

1. Department of Urology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

2. School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.

3. Department of Urology, Hospital CUF, Porto, Portugal


Palavras-chave: Laparoscopia; Próstata/cirurgia; Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia; Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos

Keywords: Laparoscopy; Prostate/surgery; Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery; Robotic Surgical Procedures

A historical perspective

The idea of performing a surgical procedure through a single abdominal incision date back to approximately 20 years ago1 (Fig. 1). The rationale behind it was that minimization of skin may benefit patients in terms of port-related complications, recovery time, pain, and cosmesis. Thus, there was a lot of enthusiasm around the concept of “laparoendoscopic single site surgery” (LESS), and many surgeons around the world rode a wave of clinical investigations aiming at exploring the potential application of this novel surgical concept for a large variety of urologic indications.2 Those pioneers soon realized that LESS was plagued by significant technical challenges which would hinder its wide implementation.

Figure 1: Landmark studies in the history of single incision/single port surgery 

Therefore, the use of the commercially available multiport robotic platforms was explored to overcome these challenges.3 Ultimately, the need for a purpose-built robotic system was deemed crucial for the renaissance of single-incision/single-port surgery.4

In 2014, Kaouk et al reported the first clinical investigation on the use of a novel robotic platform specifically designed for single-port urologic surgery (da Vinci prototype SP9999).5 A total of 19 procedures were successfully performed including radical prostatectomy, radical, simple and partial nephrectomy. This feasibility and safety study paved the way for the FDA clearance of the daVinci SP robotic system. However, the system became commercially available in the US a few years later, in 2018, but only for Urology and Transoral surgery.

Kaouk et al reported the first clinical series using the new platform.6

In 2022, the system was cleared for use in Japan. As of December of 2023, 177 SP systems have been installed in the US.7 In January 2024, the SP system received CE clearance and it is now available also in Europe.

Overview of the sp system and accessories

A familiarity with the SP robotic system and its main features, as well as accessories that are used with it, is essential to understand its functionality and potential.8

The da Vinci SP (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) integrates upgraded software, which improves its overall functionality, offering features that optimize surgical procedures and ensure seamless integration with the platform and instruments.

Figure 2: (a) daVinci SP single arm boom; (b) Access port with Airseal; (c) Camera and instruments deployed during a dry lab 

A visual icon, called the “Navigator”, has been introduced on the screen to improve the coordination between instruments and the camera, enabling the surgeon to have a global visualization of all the instruments within the surgical space. The surgeon console mirrors the Xi console in both hand controls and foot pedals. The patient cart is the operative part of the robotic platform and encloses a single-arm boom and a patient arm (Fig. 2). The patient arm features four instrument drives in which instruments and scope are inserted, and a cannula arm that holds the port through which instruments are deployed. The SP flexible camera can rotate in all directions and therefore different perspective angles can be achieved while the instruments maintain a fixed position. Furthermore, a specific feature of the SP called “re-location” allows the entire platform to be moved in any direction around its fulcrum.

The camera and each instrument are positioned in the 12, 3, 6, and 9 o’clock positions within the trocar.

Port placement is flexible and allows for 360° of robotic docking.

A purpose-built “Access port” (Intuitive Surgical) allows for “floating docking”. This port exists in two sizes (small 2.4-5 cm; large 2.4-7 cm) and it includes the globe, an Alexis wound retractor, an “entry guide” (a 25-mm multichannel trocar that houses one entry channel for an 8 mm flexible 0° endoscope, and three other entry channels for the 6 mm robotic instruments), and an inflatable plastic globe which ensures adequate distance of the instruments from the surgical field. Through the Access port, there is also a 12 mm entry that can be used by the bedside assistant, and a lateral 8 mm entry which is usually used to insert a 5-8 mm Airseal® trocar (Conmed) (Fig. 2). Suction can be performed either an adapted 16-18Fr Nelaton tube or with a commercially available Remotely Operated Suction Irrigation (ROSI) system 112 (VTI, Nashua, NH USA), a flexible tube with a short rigid tip that the surgeon can handle throughout the surgical field. During partial nephrectomy procedures, a low-profile drop-in US probe is advisable, such as the L43K Robotic Transducer (Hitachi Aloka), can is preferred to facilitate handling. Moreover, the low-pressure SCANLAN® Reliance Bulldog LP Clamp can be used as it allows robotically controlled application (rather than done by the bedside assistant).

What procedures can be Done with the sp system?

The entire spectrum of urologic procedures can be done with the SP robotic system,9 with some specific ones that are more suitable for a system that is designed to work in narrow surgical fields (Table 1; Fig. 3).

Table 1: Most appealing SP robotic urologic procedures 

Procedure Approach
Radical Prostatectomy Extraperitoneal
Transvesical
Simple Prostatectomy (Prostate enucleation) Transvesical
Partial Nephrectomy Retroperitoneal via lower anterior approach
Retroperitoneal via flank approach
Nephro-Ureterectomy Retroperitoneal via lower anterior approach
Pyeloplasty Retroperitoneal via lower anterior approach
Transperitoneal (periumbilical)

Figure 3: Examples of SP robotic procedures: (a) extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy, (b) intraoperative US during retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy via lower anterior access, (c) incision of the posterior plane during transvesical simple prostatectomy, (d) identification of crossing vessel during left transperitoneal pyeloplasty 

While early SP series on radical prostatectomy (RALP) described a transperitoneal approach (and the use of a “plus one” trocar),10,11 over more recent years there has been a transition to alternative approaches.12 The extraperitoneal and transvesical SP-RALP appear to be the two most promising appealing ones, as they offer decreased invasiveness, potentially shorter length of stay, and better pain control.13,14 Despite being novel, SP-RALP was shown to be safe during the early phase of its clinical implementation. In a report by the SPARC collaborative group, of 1103 cases, intraoperative complications were noted in five patients (0.4%), all of which occurred during the transperitoneal approach.

Postoperative complications were noted in 143 patients (13%), with major ones being only 3.7%.15

SP robotic simple prostatectomy is being mostly performed via transvesical approach. The largest report to date by the SPARC group on 91 patients (mean prostate volume 156 mL) showed this could be a safe, pain-free, outpatient procedure.16 This has been renamed Robot-assisted SP transvesical enucleation of the prostate,17 as it can become competitive with more established enucleation techniques.

Surgical treatment of renal masses is another key application of SP robotic surgery. Partial nephrectomy (PN) was initially explored via transperitoneal approach.18 In a single-center comparative study, 30 SP cases were matched 1:1 to 30 multiport cases and there were no significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss, ischemia time, transfusions rate, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and positive surgical margin rates. Patients undergoing SP-RAPN had a 30% reduction in median length of stay (median 25 vs 34 hours, p<0.003).19 Similar to the RALP experience, it was soon realized that the value of the SP lies in its use for retroperitoneal surgery. Pellegrino et al described a lower anterior retroperitoneal approach, with patient in supine position, that can be used for a variety of upper tract procedures.20 Several series with this approach for SP robotic PN were reported with very promising outcomes.21 In a recent report by the SPARC group, the “traditional” lateral flank approach and the new low anterior access were compared for SP retroperitoneal robotic PN.22 Both approaches were acceptable with comparable perioperative outcomes, but the lower anterior approach seems to be more versatile for varying tumor locations. In addition to PN, other kidney surgeries can be performed, including radical nephrectomy and radical nephroureterectomy. In this latter case, the SP platform allows to perform this multi-quadrant procedure via the lower anterior retroperitoneal approach.

Another procedure that seems to be a perfect fit for SP robotic surgery is pyeloplasty (as well as any other purely reconstructive ureteral surgery procedures). This is especially true when considering that the patient population in this case is young and therefore more interested in a good cosmetic outcome. The procedure can be safely and effectively performed with a 3-4 cm single incision via a trans-umbilical (transperitoneal) approach23 or a lower anterior approach.24

Advantages & challenges of sp robotic surgery

Implementing SP robotic surgery in a Center with an established multiport robotic program is at the same time a challenge but also a unique opportunity for growth and improvement.25 This requires a commitment by the entire surgical team to exit the comfort zone. A step-by-step approach can be used where indications can be limited to low-complexity cases and the approach can be initially a standard transperitoneal approach while one gets comfortable with the platform. However, a transition to the retro and extra peritoneal spaces is advisable after just a few cases. Similarly, the use of an additional (“plus one”) trocar can be an initial strategy, but this is not needed for most cases, except for selected PN and simple prostatectomy cases. Introducing SP robotics in an academic Center where there are residents and fellows to train might pose some challenges. On the other hand, it could be argued that younger (less structured surgeons) are more open-minded about acquiring a new technique. Therefore, it is key to gauge interest and motivate, to put in place educational hands-on opportunities. At the same time, a multiport robotic volume should also be maintained, also because the SP and the multiport robot have complementary (rather than alternative) roles.

While virtually anything can be done with the SP system, multiport robotic surgery is still a better option for “non narrow space” procedures (ie large tumor nephrectomies, radical cystectomies). Another consideration is that acquiring an SP system (which is now mostly reserved to Urology and transoral procedures) can translate into larger overall access to robotic surgery for the other service lines within the hospital.26

The main value of SP robotic surgery versus multiport surgery certainly lies in the opportunity for expanding the use of outpatient and same day surgery, and this can potentially become a cost-effective option.27

Conclusion

SP robotic surgery is one of the latest and most interesting innovations in the urology field. It has the potential to further minimize minimally invasive surgery by minimizing skin incision and surgical trauma, by facilitating the use of extra and retroperitoneal spaces, and therefore by expedite postoperative recovery, paving the way for outpatient robotic surgery.

Transitioning from MP to SP requires a shift in mindset and it involves a learning curve, but SP can be implemented safely, and it should not be considered as “against” multiport robotic surgery, but rather as an additional tool in the surgical armamentarium at the disposal of modern urologists. While cost can be regarded as an issue, it can be counterbalanced by potential savings in terms of hospital beds/days.

Last, but not least, as this is the first commercially available SP platform, it is foreseeable that its features will be further optimized.

References

1. Tracy CR, Raman JD, Cadeddu JA, Rane A. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urology: where have we been and where are we heading? Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2008;5:561-8. doi: 10.1038/ncpuro1215. [ Links ]

2. Kaouk JH, Autorino R, Kim FJ, Han DH, Lee SW, Yinghao S, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urology: worldwide multi-institutional analysis of 1076 cases. Eur Urol. 2011;60:998-1005. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.06.002. [ Links ]

3. Autorino R, Kaouk JH, Stolzenburg JU, Gill IS, Mottrie A, Tewari A, et al. Current status and future directions of robotic single-site surgery: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2013;63:266-80. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.08.028. [ Links ]

4. Sorokin I, Canvasser NE, Irwin B, Autorino R, Liatsikos EN, Cadeddu JA, et al. The Decline of Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery: A Survey of the Endourological Society to Identify Shortcomings and Guidance for Future Directions. J Endourol. 2017;31:1049-55. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0280. [ Links ]

5. Kaouk JH, Haber GP, Autorino R, Crouzet S, Ouzzane A, Flamand V, et al. A novel robotic system for single-port urologic surgery: first clinical investigation. Eur Urol. 2014;66:1033-43. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.039. [ Links ]

6. Kaouk JH, Bertolo R. Single-site robotic platform in clinical practice: first cases in the USA. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2019; 71:294-8. doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03384-8. [ Links ]

7. Guthart G. JP Morgan Healthcare Conference 2024 [accessed April 2024] Available at: Available at: https://isrg.intuitive.com/static-files/04d4e506-f291-4b71-b99a-e45f2de8b530Links ]

8. Ditonno F, Pellegrino AA, Franco A. The Single Port (SP) robotic surgical “toolbox”: a primer for beginners. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2024 (in press). [ Links ]

9. Kaouk J, Aminsharifi A, Sawczyn G, Kim S, Wilson CA, Garisto J, et al. Single-port robotic urological surgery using purpose-built single-port surgical system: single-institutional experience with the first 100 cases. Urology. 2020; 140:77-84. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.11.086. [ Links ]

10. Kaouk J, Bertolo R, Eltemamy M, Garisto J. Single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: first clinical experience using the SP surgical system. Urology. 2019; 124:309. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.10.025. [ Links ]

11. Dobbs RW, Halgrimson WR, Madueke I, Vigneswaran HT, Wilson JO, Crivellaro S. Single-port robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience and technique with the da Vinci® SP platform. BJU Int. 2019; 124:1022-7. doi: 10.1111/bju.14864. [ Links ]

12. Franco A, Pellegrino AA, De Nunzio C, Salkowski M, Jackson JC, Zukowski LB, et al. Single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: where do we stand? Curr Oncol. 2023; 30:4301-10. doi: 10.3390/curroncol30040328. [ Links ]

13. Abou Zeinab M, Beksac AT, Ferguson E, Kaviani A, Moschovas MC, Joseph J, et al. Single-port Extraperitoneal and Transperitoneal Radical Prostatectomy: A Multi-Institutional Propensity-Score Matched Study. Urology. 2023; 171:140-5. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.10.001. [ Links ]

14. Ramos-Carpinteyro R, Ferguson EL, Chavali JS, Geskin A, Kaouk J. First 100 cases of transvesical single-port robotic radical prostatectomy. Asian J Urol. 2023; 10:416-22. [ Links ]

15. Soputro NA, Chavali JS, Ferguson EL, et al. Complications of single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: multi-institutional analysis from the Single-Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC). BJU Int. 2023 Nov 16. doi: 10.1111/bju.16228 [ Links ]

16. Abou Zeinab M, Beksac AT, Corse T, Talamini S, Morgantini L, Kaviani A, et al. The multi-institutional experience in single-port robotic transvesical simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia management. J Urol. 2022; 208:369-78. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002692. [ Links ]

17. Franco A, Ditonno F, Manfredi C, Licari LC, Bologna E, Cherullo EE, et al. Robot-assisted single-port transvesical enucleation of the prostate: step-by-step technique and early single-centre experience. BJU Int. 2024; 133:778-82. doi: 10.1111/bju.16324. [ Links ]

18. Francavilla S, Abern MR, Dobbs RW, Vigneswaran HT, Talamini S, Antonelli A, et al. Single-Port robot assisted partial nephrectomy: initial experience and technique with the da Vinci Single-Port platform (IDEAL Phase 1). Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2022; 74:216-24. doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.21.03919-9. [ Links ]

19. Licari LC, Bologna E, Franco A, Ditonno F, Manfredi C, Huang J, et al. Single-port vs multi-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: A single center propensity score-matched analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2024; 50:108011. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108011. [ Links ]

20. Pellegrino AA, Chen G, Morgantini L, Calvo RS, Crivellaro S. Simplifying Retroperitoneal Robotic Single-port Surgery: Novel Supine Anterior Retroperitoneal Access. Eur Urol. 2023; 84:223-8. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.05.006. [ Links ]

21. Ditonno F, Bologna E, Licari LC, Franco A, Coogan CL, et al. Single-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy via the lower anterior approach: a video analysis of initial clinical experience. BJU Int. 2024 (in press). doi: 10.1111/bju.16411. [ Links ]

22. Razdan S, Okhawere KE, Zuluaga L, Saini I, Ucpinar B, Sauer RC, et al. Comparison of lateral flank approach and low anterior access for single port (SP) retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy: an analysis from the single port advanced research consortium (SPARC). J Robot Surg. 2024; 18:216. [ Links ]

23. Ditonno F, Franco A, Manfredi C, Feng CL, Bologna E, Licari LC, et al. Single port robot-assisted pyeloplasty: An early comparative outcomes analysis. Int J Med Robot. 2024; 20:e2622. doi: 10.1002/rcs.2622. [ Links ]

24. Ramos R, Chavali JS, Ferguson E, Soputro N, Geskin A, Rhee A, et al. Low anterolateral incision for single-port extraperitoneal robot-assisted pyeloplasty: description of technique and initial experience. World J Urol. 2024; 42:263. doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-04915-4. [ Links ]

25. Ditonno F, Franco A, Licari LC, Bologna E, Manfredi C, Katz DO, et al. Implementation of single-port robotic urologic surgery: experience at a large academic center. J Robot Surg. 2024; 18:119. doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-01884-z. [ Links ]

26. Pellegrino AA, Calvo RS, Pellegrino F, Morgantini L, Briganti A, Montorsi F, et al. Outpatient vs Inpatient Single-Port Robotic Urologic Surgery: Perioperative Outcomes and Complications. Urol Pract. 2024; 11:422-9. doi: 10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000500. [ Links ]

27. Lenfant L, Sawczyn G, Kim S, Aminsharifi A, Kaouk J. Single-institution Cost Comparison: Single-port Versus Multiport Robotic Prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2021; 7:532-6 [ Links ]

Declaração de contribuição/contributorship statement

RA E EL: Conceção, redação do manuscrito e revisão crítica do manuscrito

RA AND EL: Conception, drafting of the manuscript and critical revision of the manuscript

Responsabilidades éticas

Conflitos de interesse: Os autores declaram não possuir conflitos de interesse.

Suporte financeiro: O presente trabalho não foi suportado por nenhum subsidio o bolsa ou bolsa.

Proveniência e revisão por pares: Não comissionado; revisão externa por pares.

Ethical disclosures

Conflicts of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Financial support: This work has not received any contribution grant or scholarship.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Received: June 18, 2024; Accepted: June 20, 2024

Autor Correspondente/Corresponding Author: Ricardo Auttorino [ricautor@gmail.com] ORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7045-7725

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License