Single-Port Versus Multi-Port Robotic Retroperitoneal Partial Nephrectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Journal of endourology Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1089/end.2024.0493
Seokhwan Bang, Jiwoong Yu, Hoyoung Bae, Dongho Shin, Yong Hyun Park, Hyuk Jin Cho, U-Syn Ha, Ji Youl Lee, Sung-Hoo Hong
{"title":"Single-Port Versus Multi-Port Robotic Retroperitoneal Partial Nephrectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison.","authors":"Seokhwan Bang, Jiwoong Yu, Hoyoung Bae, Dongho Shin, Yong Hyun Park, Hyuk Jin Cho, U-Syn Ha, Ji Youl Lee, Sung-Hoo Hong","doi":"10.1089/end.2024.0493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Objective:</i></b> To compare the surgical results of retroperitoneal (RP) robot partial nephrectomy (PNx) using either a single-port robot (SP) or a multi-port robot (MP). <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> We retrospectively reviewed all RP robotic PNx performed at a single institution from September 2021-when the SP robot was introduced to the institution-through April 2023. In total, 125 patients underwent the surgery; 81 patients were treated with surgery using a MP robot whereas 44 patients were treated with surgery using a SP. All MP surgeries were performed with da Vinci Xi (Intuitive, Sunnyvale, California, USA), while all SP surgeries were performed with da Vinci SP (Intuitive, Sunnyvale, California, USA). We performed a propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis of these 125 patients. <b><i>Results:</i></b> There was no significant difference between the two groups after PSM. In terms of operation time, that for MP was 103.68 ± 21.89 minutes whereas that for SP was 95.43 ± 32.22 minutes (<i>p</i>-value = 0.164). Meanwhile, in terms of console time, that for MP was 70.95 ± 21.92 minutes whereas that for SP was 64.14 ± 32.06 minutes (<i>p</i>-value = 0.248). In terms of estimated blood loss was 90.91 ± 91.06 mL in MP and 92.27 ± 104.30 mL in SP (<i>p</i>-value = 0.948). Lastly, there was a statistically significant difference in warm ischemic time, as it was 17.18 ± 6.56 minutes in MP and 13.82 ± 4.59 in SP (<i>p</i>-value = 0.007). There were no statistically significant differences between MP and SP in any other surgical outcomes. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> SP robot RP PNx demonstrated comparable outcomes to those achieve using MP procedures. This means SP robot RP PNx can be considered a preferable and more convenient surgical approach than conventional methods, particularly when dealing with small renal masses located in the posterior side of the kidney.</p>","PeriodicalId":15723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endourology","volume":" ","pages":"1353-1358"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endourology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2024.0493","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the surgical results of retroperitoneal (RP) robot partial nephrectomy (PNx) using either a single-port robot (SP) or a multi-port robot (MP). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all RP robotic PNx performed at a single institution from September 2021-when the SP robot was introduced to the institution-through April 2023. In total, 125 patients underwent the surgery; 81 patients were treated with surgery using a MP robot whereas 44 patients were treated with surgery using a SP. All MP surgeries were performed with da Vinci Xi (Intuitive, Sunnyvale, California, USA), while all SP surgeries were performed with da Vinci SP (Intuitive, Sunnyvale, California, USA). We performed a propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis of these 125 patients. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups after PSM. In terms of operation time, that for MP was 103.68 ± 21.89 minutes whereas that for SP was 95.43 ± 32.22 minutes (p-value = 0.164). Meanwhile, in terms of console time, that for MP was 70.95 ± 21.92 minutes whereas that for SP was 64.14 ± 32.06 minutes (p-value = 0.248). In terms of estimated blood loss was 90.91 ± 91.06 mL in MP and 92.27 ± 104.30 mL in SP (p-value = 0.948). Lastly, there was a statistically significant difference in warm ischemic time, as it was 17.18 ± 6.56 minutes in MP and 13.82 ± 4.59 in SP (p-value = 0.007). There were no statistically significant differences between MP and SP in any other surgical outcomes. Conclusions: SP robot RP PNx demonstrated comparable outcomes to those achieve using MP procedures. This means SP robot RP PNx can be considered a preferable and more convenient surgical approach than conventional methods, particularly when dealing with small renal masses located in the posterior side of the kidney.

单孔与多孔机器人腹膜后肾部分切除术:倾向评分匹配比较。
目的比较使用单孔机器人(SP)或多孔机器人(MP)进行腹膜后(RP)机器人肾部分切除术(PNx)的手术效果。材料与方法:我们回顾性审查了一家医疗机构自2021年9月引进SP机器人至2023年4月期间实施的所有RP机器人肾部分切除术。共有 125 名患者接受了手术,其中 81 名患者使用 MP 机器人进行了手术治疗,44 名患者使用 SP 机器人进行了手术治疗。所有MP手术均由达芬奇Xi(Intuitive公司,美国加利福尼亚州森尼韦尔)完成,而所有SP手术均由达芬奇SP(Intuitive公司,美国加利福尼亚州森尼韦尔)完成。我们对这125名患者进行了倾向得分匹配(PSM)分析。结果显示两组患者在倾向得分匹配后无明显差异。在手术时间方面,MP 为 103.68 ± 21.89 分钟,而 SP 为 95.43 ± 32.22 分钟(P 值 = 0.164)。同时,在控制台时间方面,MP 为 70.95 ± 21.92 分钟,而 SP 为 64.14 ± 32.06 分钟(P 值 = 0.248)。在估计失血量方面,MP 为 90.91 ± 91.06 毫升,SP 为 92.27 ± 104.30 毫升(P 值 = 0.948)。最后,温缺血时间在统计学上有显著差异,MP 为 17.18 ± 6.56 分钟,SP 为 13.82 ± 4.59 分钟(P 值 = 0.007)。在其他手术结果方面,MP 和 SP 没有明显的统计学差异。结论SP 机器人 RP PNx 与 MP 手术的结果相当。这意味着与传统方法相比,SP机器人RP PNx是一种更可取、更方便的手术方法,尤其是在处理位于肾脏后侧的肾脏小肿块时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of endourology
Journal of endourology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.80%
发文量
254
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Endourology, JE Case Reports, and Videourology are the leading peer-reviewed journal, case reports publication, and innovative videojournal companion covering all aspects of minimally invasive urology research, applications, and clinical outcomes. The leading journal of minimally invasive urology for over 30 years, Journal of Endourology is the essential publication for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest surgical technologies in endoscopic, laparoscopic, robotic, and image-guided procedures as they apply to benign and malignant diseases of the genitourinary tract. This flagship journal includes the companion videojournal Videourology™ with every subscription. While Journal of Endourology remains focused on publishing rigorously peer reviewed articles, Videourology accepts original videos containing material that has not been reported elsewhere, except in the form of an abstract or a conference presentation. Journal of Endourology coverage includes: The latest laparoscopic, robotic, endoscopic, and image-guided techniques for treating both benign and malignant conditions Pioneering research articles Controversial cases in endourology Techniques in endourology with accompanying videos Reviews and epochs in endourology Endourology survey section of endourology relevant manuscripts published in other journals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信