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).

Single Port (SP) robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) can be performed via retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approach. We aim to compare outcomes of two commonly described incisions for retroperitoneal SP RPN: lateral flank approach (LFA) and low anterior access (LAA). We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent SP retroperitoneal RPN from 2018 to 2023 as part of a large multi-institute collaboration (SPARC). Baseline demographic, clinical, tumor-specific characteristics, and perioperative outcomes were compared using χ2, t test, Fisher exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test. Multivariable analyses were conducted using robust and logistic regressions. A total of 70 patients underwent SP retroperitoneal RPN, with 44 undergoing LAA. Overall, there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The LAA group exhibited significantly lower median RENAL scores (8 vs. 5, p < 0.001) and more varied tumor locations (p = 0.002). In the bivariate analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in ischemia time, estimated blood loss, or complication rates between the groups. However, the LAA group had longer operative times (101 vs. 134 min, p < 0.001), but was more likely to undergo a same-day discharge (p < 0.001). When controlling for other variables, LAA was associated with shorter ischemia time (p = 0.005), but there was no significant difference in operative time (p = 0.348) and length of stay (p = 0.122). Both LFA and LAA are acceptable approaches for SP retroperitoneal RPN with comparable perioperative outcomes. This early data suggests the LAA is more versatile for varying tumor locations; however, larger cohort studies are needed to ascertain whether there is an overall difference in patient recovery.

Single Port Modified Partial Nephrectomy: Novel Simultaneous Access to Peritoneal and Retroperitoneal Partial Nephrectomy, Initial Clinical Experience.

Introduction and Objective: Since its Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2018, Intuitive Surgical DaVinci single port (SP) robotic platform has been an effectively used technology for multiple urologic procedures. The purpose of this study is to share our early intraoperative and perioperative outcomes and potential benefits for performing a lower anterior access (LAA) incision for SP robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (SP-RAPN). The LAA incision enables performing a trans- or retroperitoneal (RP) approach through the same incision and eases the transition to a RP approach. Methods: This study is a prospective review of 78 SP-RAPN cases between March 2021 and January 2023 by an experienced robotic surgeon. A single 2-3 cm oblique incision parallel to the external oblique muscle, one-third of the distance between the iliac crest and umbilicus, was used to insert the multichannel port to perform the RAPN. We extracted intra- and perioperative data of these patients to share the outcomes of this approach. Results: SP-RAPN was effectively completed in 78 patients (38 females and 40 males) without conversion to open or laparoscopic techniques. The mean age was 61.2 ± 12.1 years. The mean tumor size was 3.0 ± 1.2 cm, 43 were right-sided masses, and 35 were left sided. The R.E.N.A.L Nephrometry score ranged from (4-11) with an average of 7.0 ± 1.9. Average operating room time was 90.5 ± 24.6 minutes, estimated blood loss was 88.3 ± 134 mL, and length of stay of 1.07 ± 0.7 days. Of the 78 cases, 40 required clamping of the renal artery with average warm ischemia time of 19.4 ± 6.7 minutes in patients who underwent clamping. No complications in all of 78 patients. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility and reproducibility of SP-RAPN using a LAA incision. This incision provides a standardized approach for surgeons to transition to the RP approach using the SP platform.

Current Expectations and Opinions on Single-port Robotic Surgery: A Survey Among European Experts by the SPARC Collaborative Group.

Single-port (SP) robotic surgery is a relatively new technology that is expected to become available on the European market within a year. We investigated the current expectations of robotic surgery experts and opinion leaders practicing in Europe. A 17-item online questionnaire was sent to 120 participants identified as "experts" on the basis of their general contributions to the field of robotic surgery. Overall, 90 responses were registered, with a response rate of 75%. Italy (30%), France (15%), and the UK (12%) provided the most participants, who worked mainly in academic-either public (60%) or private (20%)-hospitals. Most respondents (79%) had no previous experience with "single site" surgery, and attendance at scientific meetings (79%) and perusal of the literature (65%) were the sources of SP knowledge most frequently reported. The perceived advantages of SP robotic surgery included lower invasiveness (61%), easier access to the retroperitoneal or extraperitoneal space (53%), better cosmetic results (44%), and lower postoperative pain (44%). The most "appealing" SP procedures were retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy via an anterior approach (43%) and transvesical simple prostatectomy (43%). Within the limitations of this type of analysis, our findings suggest high interest and a positive attitude towards SP technology overall. Patient summary: Technology for single-port (SP) robotic surgery, in which just one skin incision is made in the abdomen to perform the operation, will soon be available in Europe. We conducted a survey on SP surgery among European experts in urological robotic surgery. The results show that there is high interest in and a positive attitude to SP surgery. The SP approach could result in better cosmetic results and lower postoperative pain for patients.

Short-Term Reported Urologic Adverse Events Following COVID-19 Immunization: A Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Medical misinformation regarding COVID-19 immunization remains rampant and a public concern, and as such, there is a need for national studies evaluating the immunization's safety profile. We sought to quantify and analyze urologic adverse events and symptoms after COVID-19 immunization, compare these events reported between COVID-19 vaccine types, and compare these events reported following COVID-19 immunization relative to those reported following other immunizations. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective case-control disproportionality analysis by querying the Food and Drug Administration Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System for all reported symptoms following COVID-19 immunization through December 23, 2022, as well as for all non-COVID immunizations. RESULTS: Using a total of 704,231 event reports containing 2,982,187 symptoms related to COVID vaccination and a total of 770,975 event reports containing 2,198,993 symptoms related to all vaccinations other than COVID-19 for disproportionality analysis, no urologic symptom produced a positive signal when grouping all vaccinations. When stratifying by manufacturer, some symptoms related to Janssen vaccination were positive, but this may be in part due to overreporting secondary to media attention rather than a strong association between Janssen vaccination and urologic adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Although there have been anecdotal reports of adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccine, our review of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database did not produce positive signals across all 4 measures for any potential adverse event. Our findings do not suggest increased scrutiny is required regarding these adverse events potentially related to the COVID-19 immunization. Further evaluation and analysis of the COVID-19 immunization is ongoing.

Surgical Technique and Perioperative Outcomes Following Single-Port Robotic Adrenalectomy: A Single Institutional Experience.

Objective: To describe a single institution's experience with single-port robotic adrenalectomy (SP-RA) and report perioperative outcomes. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective, single-center study of adult patients who underwent SP-RA between January 2019 and April 2022 by a single surgeon using an IRB-approved institutional database. Patient demographics, perioperative data, surgical pathology, and postoperative outcomes were assessed. Results: Nineteen patients were identified who underwent SP-RA by a single surgeon over the period reviewed. One patient underwent bilateral SP-RA for bilateral adrenal masses, totaling 20 SP-RA procedures performed. Mean operative time was 80.7 ± 22.9 minutes and mean length of stay was 33.1 ± 27.9 hours. Two minor complications (Clavien-Dindo

Preoperative Predictors of Surgical Success for Robotic Ureteral Reconstruction of Proximal and Middle Ureteral Strictures.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate predictors of surgical success for patients undergoing robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO), proximal, and middle ureteral stricture disease. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our multi-institutional Collaborative of Reconstructive Robotic Ureteral Surgery database to identify all consecutive patients undergoing RUR for UPJO, proximal and/or middle ureteral stricture disease between April 2012 and December 2020. The specific reconstruction technique was determined by the primary surgeon based on clinical history and intraoperative findings. Patients were grouped according to whether they were surgical successful. Preoperative variables between both groups were compared using chi-square tests. All independent variables with associations of P <.2 then underwent a binary logistic regression analysis to determine predictive variables of success for RUR (P ≤.05 was considered statistically significant). RESULTS: Overall, 338 patients met inclusion criteria. Surgical success rates of RUR are shown in Table 1. Univariate analysis (Table 2) showed that there were a lower proportion of patients with diabetes (8.9% vs 25.7%, P <.01) and a higher proportion of patients who underwent ureteral rest (74.3% vs 48.6%, P <.01) in the surgical success group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis (Table 3) further revealed the odds of surgical success in patients without diabetes was 3.08 times ((confidence interval) CI 1.26-7.54, P = .01) the odds of success for patients with diabetes. The odds of surgical success in patients who underwent preoperative ureteral rest were 2.8 times (CI 1.35-5.83, P = .01) the odds of success for patients who did not undergo preoperative ureteral rest. CONCLUSION: Surgical success of RUR for management of UPJO, proximal, and middle ureteral strictures may be influenced by factors including preoperative ureteral rest and presence of diabetes.

Complications of single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: multi-institutional analysis from the Single-Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the perioperative complications of single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on the prospectively maintained, Institutional Review Board-approved, multi-institutional Single-Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC) database. A total of 1103 patients were identified who underwent three different approaches of SP-RARP between 2019 and 2022 using the purpose-built SP robotic platform. In addition to baseline clinical, perioperative outcomes, this study comprehensively analysed for any evidence of intraoperative complication, as well as postoperative complication and readmission within 90 days of the respective surgery. RESULTS: Of the 244, 712, and 147 patients who underwent transperitoneal, extraperitoneal, and transvesical SP-RARP, respectively, intraoperative complications were noted in five patients (0.4%), all of which occurred during the transperitoneal approach. Two patients had bowel serosal tears, two had posterior button-holing of the bladder necessitating repair, and one patient had an obturator nerve injury. Postoperative complications were noted in 143 patients (13%) with major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥III) only identified in 3.7% of the total cohort. The most common complications were lymphocele (3.9%), acute urinary retention (2%), and urinary tract infection (1.9%). The 90-day re-admission rate was 3.9%. CONCLUSION: The SP-RARP is a safe and effective procedure with low complication and readmission rates regardless of the approach. These results are comparable to current multi-port RARP literature.

Transperitoneal Versus Retroperitoneal Single-port Robotic-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: An Analysis from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium.

BACKGROUND: In the surgical management of kidney tumors, such as in multiport technology, single-port (SP) robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) can be performed using the transperitoneal (TP) or retroperitoneal (RP) approach. However, there is a dearth of literature on the efficacy and safety of either approach for SP RAPN. OBJECTIVE: To compare the peri- and postoperative outcomes of the TP and RP approaches for SP RAPN. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC) database of five institutions. All patients underwent SP RAPN for a renal mass between 2019 and 2022. INTERVENTION: TP versus RP SP RAPN. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Baseline characteristics, and peri- and postoperative outcomes were compared between both the approaches using χ2 test, Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Student t test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 219 patients (121 [55.25%] TP, 98 [44.75%] RP) were included in the study. Of them, 115 (51.51%) were male, and the mean age was 60 ± 11 yr. RP had a significantly higher proportion of posterior tumors (54 [55.10%] RP vs 28 [23.14%] TP, p < 0.001), while other baseline characteristics were comparable between both the approaches. There was no statistically significant difference in ischemia time (18 ± 9 vs 18 ± 11 min, p = 0.898), operative time (147 ± 67 vs 146 ± 70 min, p = 0.925), estimated blood loss (p = 0.167), length of stay (1.06 ± 2.25 vs 1.33 ± 1.05 d, p = 0.270), overall complications (5 [5.10%] vs 7 [5.79%]), and major complication rate (2 [2.04%] vs 2 [1.65%], p = 1.000). No difference was observed in positive surgical margin rate (p = 0.472) or delta eGFR at median 6-mo follow-up (p = 0.273). Limitations include retrospective design and no long-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: With proper patient selection based on patient and tumor characteristics, surgeons can opt for either the TP or the RP approach for SP RAPN, and maintain satisfactory outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: The use of a single port (SP) is a novel technology for performing robotic surgery. Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is a surgery to remove a portion of the kidney due to kidney cancer. Depending on patient characteristics and surgeons' preference, SP can be performed via two approaches for RAPN: through the abdomen or through the space behind the abdominal cavity. We compared outcomes between these two approaches for patients receiving SP RAPN, finding that they were comparable. We conclude that with proper patient selection based on patient and tumor characteristics, surgeons can opt for either the TP or the RP approach for SP RAPN, and maintain satisfactory outcomes.

Low Risk of Postoperative Hernia Following Single-port Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Report From the Single-port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of postoperative hernia following different approaches of single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent SP-RARP between February 2019 and December 2022. Demographic and clinical information was collected from the multi-institutional, prospectively-maintained Single-Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC) database. Data were analyzed using IBM Statistical Packaging for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 29.0 with descriptive statistics as presented. RESULTS: A total of 1103 patients were identified, consisting of 244 (22.1%), 712 (64.6%), and 147 (13.3%) cases performed via transperitoneal, extraperitoneal (EP), and transvesical (TV) approaches, respectively. During a median follow-up time of 11 months (interquartile range 5.7-17.1 months), only two cases of incisional hernia were reported. Both cases occurred following transperitoneal SP-RARP with one patient requiring surgical repair. There remains no evidence of postoperative hernia following EP and TV SP-RARP at the completion of our review. CONCLUSION: SP-RARP was associated with low risk for postoperative hernia. The risk was lower following TV and EP SP-RARP where the peritoneum is preserved.

A Multi-Institutional Experience Utilizing Boari Flap in Robotic Urinary Reconstruction.

Objectives: There is presently scarce literature describing the outcomes of patients undergoing robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) using the Boari flap (BF) technique. Herein, we report our prospective, multi-institutional experience using BF in patients undergoing robotic urinary reconstruction. Patients and Methods: We reviewed our prospective, multicenter database for all patients undergoing RUR between September 2013 and September 2021 in which a BF was utilized. Preoperative, perioperative, and follow-up data were collected and analyzed. Major complications were defined as a Clavien-Dindo classification grade >2. Surgical failure was defined as recurrent symptoms, obstruction on imaging, or the need for additional surgical interventions. Results: We identified 50 patients who underwent RUR using a BF. Four (8%) underwent the Single Port approach. Twenty-four patients (48%) were active or former tobacco users. Thirty-four patients (68%) had previously undergone abdominal surgery, 17 (34%) had prior ureteral stricture interventions, and 9 (18%) had prior abdominopelvic radiation. The most common stricture etiology was malignancy (34.4%). The median follow-up was 15.0 months with a 90% (45/50) success rate. The five documented cases of failure occurred at a median of 1.8 months following the procedure. Conclusion: In the largest prospective, multi-institutional study of patients undergoing RUR with BF in the literature to date, we demonstrate a low rate of complications and a high rate of surgical success in three tertiary academic medical centers. All observed failures occurred within 2 months of surgical intervention.

Single Port Versus Multiport Robot-assisted Simple Prostatectomy: A Multi-institutional Study From the Single-port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC).

OBJECTIVE: To compare robot-assisted simple prostatectomy intraoperative and postoperative.ßoutcomes between single-port (SP) and multiport (MP) robotic systems in a multi-institutional setting. METHODS: We analyzed all-consecutive robot-assisted simple prostatectomy cases done in 5 centers from January 2017 to October 2022. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and compared with appropriate tests depending on the type of variable and distribution. Statistical significance was considered when P.ß<.05. RESULTS: A total of 405 cases were analyzed:.ß249 and 156 were MP and SP, respectively. Operative times were similar between groups (P.ß=.ß.62). Estimated blood loss during surgery was significantly lower with the SP robot (P.ß<.001). Postoperatively, the SP approach required a significantly shorter hospital stay, less use of opioids, and a shorter duration of Foley catheter (P.ß<.001). There was no significant difference between the post-operative Clavien-Dindo ...3 complication rate (P.ß=.ß.30). The 30-day readmission rate of MP (10.8%) was significantly higher than for SP (0%) (P.ß<.001). De novo urge incontinence was more common in the MP group (P.ß=.ß.02). CONCLUSION: The SP robotic approach to simple prostatectomy is advantageous when it comes to postoperative comfort for patients. Specifically, it requires a shorter hospital stay, less use of opioids, and a shorter Foley catheter duration.

Single-port versus multiport partial nephrectomy: a propensity-score-matched comparison of perioperative and short-term outcomes.

The objective of this study was to compare the perioperative and short-term functional and oncological outcomes of single-port and multiport robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using propensity-score analysis. We evaluated all patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy at our institution between January 2019 and October 2020. Patient demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Propensity-score matching was performed on age, sex, body mass index, prior abdominal surgery, and nephrometry score using the optimal matching method. A post hoc sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the robustness of the results. In total, 48 and 238 patients underwent single-port and multiport robotic partial nephrectomy, respectively. Following propensity-score matching, 48 multiport cases were matched 1:1 to single-port cases. The single-port cohort had lower median opioid use at postoperative day 1 (4.6 vs 9.8 MME, p = 0.0209) and cumulative hospital stay (5.1 vs 9.3 MME, p = 0.0357). Single port also had a shorter median length of stay (1.4 vs 1.6 days, p = 0.0045), although the post hoc sensitivity analysis showed no difference between the groups [- 0.13 (95% CI; - 0.580, 0.315, p = 0.5607). There were no significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss, ischemia time, transfusions received, or positive margin rates. In conclusion, based on our early experience, single-port robotic partial nephrectomy is a safe and acceptable alternative to multiport robotic partial nephrectomy, providing comparable perioperative and postoperative outcomes while reducing inpatient opioid use.

A Propensity-Matched Comparison of the Perioperative Outcomes Between Single-Port and Multi-Port Robotic Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Report from the Single Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC).

Purpose: Single-port (SP) robotic surgery is a new technology and early in its adoption curve. The goal of this study is to compare the perioperative outcomes of SP to multi-port (MP) robotic technology for partial nephrectomy. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective cohort study of patients who have undergone robot-assisted partial nephrectomy using SP and MP technology. Baseline demographic, clinical, and tumor-specific characteristics and perioperative outcomes were compared using χ2, t-test, and Mann-Whitney U test in the overall cohort and in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Results: After propensity matching, 146 SP patients were matched with 146 MP patients. SP and MP groups had similar mean age (58 ± 12 years vs 59 ± 12 years; p = 0.606) and proportion of men (54.11% vs 52.05%; p = 0.725). The SP had a longer mean ischemia (18.29 ± 10.49 minutes vs 13.79 ± 6.29 minutes; p < 0.001). Estimated blood loss (EBL) and length of hospital stay (LOS), operative time, positive margin rate, and any complication rate were similar between the two groups. Conclusions: SP partial nephrectomy had a longer ischemia time, and a comparable LOS, EBL, operative time, positive margin rates, and complication rates to MP. These early data are encouraging. However, the role of SP requires further study and should evaluate safety and long-term data when compared with the standard MP technique.

The Multi-Institutional Experience in Single-Port Robotic Transvesical Simple Prostatectomy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Management.

PURPOSE: Single-port (SP) robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) through the transvesical approach is a novel surgical option in the management of large prostatic glands. We present the first multi-institutional study to further assess the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of SP RASP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From February 2019 to November 2021, 91 consecutive patients of 3 separate institutions underwent transvesical RASP using the da Vinci® SP robotic surgical system. Surgeries were performed by 3 experienced surgeons. Through a suprapubic incision and transvesical access, the SP robot is docked directly into the bladder, and the prostatic enucleation is performed. Prospective data collection, including baseline characteristics, perioperative and postoperative outcomes, was performed. The mean followup period was 4.6 months. RESULTS: The mean (SD) prostate volume was 156 (62) ml. The mean (SD) total operative time was 159 (45) minutes, and the median (IQR) estimated blood loss was 100 (50, 200) cc. The median (IQR) postoperative hospital stay was 21.0 (6.5, 26.0) hours; however, 42% of all patients were discharged the same day. The median (IQR) Foley catheter duration was 5 (5, 7) days. Only 3 patients (3%) developed Clavien grade 2 postoperative complications. At 9-month followup, the median (IQR) International Prostate Symptom Score and quality of life score were 4 (2, 5) and 0 (0, 1), respectively, with a mean (SD) maximum flow rate and post-void residual of 21 (17) ml/second and 40 (55) ml, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a multi-institutional setting, the SP RASP promotes a pain-free procedure, same-day discharge, short Foley catheter duration, low complication rate and quick recovery.

Propensity-Score Matched Analysis Between Extraperitoneal Single Port and Intraperitoneal Multiport Radical Prostatectomy: A Single-Institutional Experience.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative results and intermediate-term functional outcomes of single port and multiport robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy by using a propensity-score analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated all patients who underwent robotic prostatectomy by 3 urologic surgeons at our institution between January 2019 and October 2020. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected and assessed. Patients were matched based on body mass index, Gleason group, and prostate volume using the optimal matching method. RESULTS: Overall, 98 and 165 patients underwent single port and multiport robotic prostatectomy, respectively. Following propensity-score matching, 98 multiport cases were matched 1:1 to single port cases. The median operative time was lower for multiport (111.5 vs 147.0 minutes, P = .0000). Single port had a lower median estimated blood loss (50.0 vs 75.0 mL, P = .0006), pain score on postoperative day 0 (1.0 vs 2.0, P = .0004), opioid use at postoperative day 1 (0.0 [IQR 0.0-5.0] vs 0.0 MME [IQR 0.0-7.5], P = .0058), cumulative opioid use (2.0 vs 7.0 MME, P = .0008), and lymph node yield (4.0 vs 7.0 nodes, P = .0051). Single port had a greater percentage of men regain full erectile function by 6 months (23.8% vs 4.8%, P = .002). CONCLUSION: The single port robotic system is a safe option for localized prostate cancer treatment, offering superior pain control and comparable perioperative results and intermediate-term functional outcomes compared to the multiport robotic approach.

Single-Port Robotic Radical Cystectomy with Intracorporeal Bowel Diversion: Initial Experience and Review of Surgical Outcomes.

Introduction and Objective: Scant literature is available on surgical outcomes of radical cystectomies on the new single-port (SP) system. This study compares short-term outcomes in patients undergoing radical cystectomy with those undergoing intracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD) on the multiport (MP) vs SP platform. Methods: This institutional review board approved study used a prospective cystectomy database and nonparametric testing including chi-squared, Mann-Whitney U, and Fisher exact tests to analyze all variables stratified by surgical approach. Results: Thirty-four patients underwent radical cystectomy with ICUD from September 1, 2019, to February 8, 2021. Twenty patients were in the MP cohort, whereas 14 were in the SP group. Table 1 presents the demographics of both groups and shows no statistically significant differences. Intra- and postoperative as well as pathology data are given in Table 2. Patients in the SP group had less narcotic use (MP: 25 morphine milligram equivalent [MME] vs SP: 11.5 MME, p = 0.047) and shorter return of bowel function (MP: 3 days vs SP: 2 days, p = 0.032). Operative times were similar between both groups despite having fewer patients undergoing ileal conduit (MP: 85% vs SP: 50%, p = 0.027) in the SP group. In Table 3, we list the early short-term postoperative follow-up data for each group that showed no significant differences between the two groups with an average follow-up of 4.9 months for MP and 4.4 months for SP. Conclusions: Our initial experience with SP robotic cystectomy and ICUD appears to be safe and an effective alternative to MP cystectomies. A learning curve was involved but the overall transition from MP to SP was smooth. Operative times were similar despite fewer patients undergoing ileal diversion, shorter return of bowel function, and less narcotic use in the SP group. Further studies including longer follow-ups with multi-institutional data are underway.

Single Port vs Multiport Robotic Pyeloplasty: Propensity-Score Matched Analysis of Perioperative and Follow-Up Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of single port (SP) robotic pyeloplasty and multiport (MP) robotic pyeloplasty using a propensity-score matched analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a chart review of all patients who underwent SP robotic pyeloplasty from January 2019 to October 2020 and MP robotic pyeloplasty from January 2016 to October 2020. Patient demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Propensity-score matching was performed on sex, body mass index, and history of previous pyeloplasty to adjust for potential baseline confounders. A post hoc sensitivity analysis for operative time was performed to examine the robustness of the results. RESULTS: In total, 24 and 41 patients underwent sSP and MP robotic pyeloplasty, respectively. Following propensity-score matching, 21 MP cases were matched 1:1 to SP cases. The SP group was shown to have longer median operative times (128.0 vs 88.0 minutes, P = .0411) and shorter follow up time (9.3 vs 18.7 months, P = .0066). In a sensitivity analysis, SP robotic pyeloplasty was marginally associated with increased operative time (95% CI -0.25, 29.72, P = .0540). CONCLUSIONS: SP robotic pyeloplasty is a safe and acceptable alternative to MP robotic pyeloplasty, achieving comparable perioperative and postoperative outcomes.

Ureteral Rest is Associated With Improved Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Robotic Ureteral Reconstruction of Proximal and Middle Ureteral Strictures.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of ureteral rest on outcomes of robotic ureteral reconstruction. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent robotic ureteral reconstruction of proximal and/or middle ureteral strictures in our multi-institutional database between 2/2012-03/2019 with ≥12 months follow-up. All patients were recommended to undergo ureteral rest, which we defined as the absence of hardware (ie. double-J stent or percutaneous nephroureteral tube) across a ureteral stricture ≥4 weeks prior to reconstruction. However, patients who refused percutaneous nephrostomy tube placement did not undergo ureteral rest. Perioperative outcomes were compared after grouping patients according to whether or not they underwent ureteral rest. Continuous and categorical variables were compared using Mann-Whitney U and 2-tailed chi-squared tests, respectively; P <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Of 234 total patients, 194 (82.9%) underwent ureteral rest and 40 (17.1%) did not undergo ureteral rest prior to ureteral reconstruction. Patients undergoing ureteral rest were associated with a higher success rate compared to those not undergoing ureteral rest (90.7% versus 77.5%, respectively; P = .027). Also, patients undergoing ureteral rest were associated with lower estimated blood loss (50 versus 75 milliliters, respectively; p<0.001) and less likely to undergo buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty (20.1% versus 37.5%, respectively; p=0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing ureteral rest prior to ureteral reconstruction may allow for stricture maturation and is associated higher surgical success rates, lower estimated blood loss, and decreased utilization of buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty.

Robotic Ureteral Reconstruction in Patients with Radiation-Induced Ureteral Strictures: Experience from the Collaborative of Reconstructive Robotic Ureteral Surgery.

Objectives: Management of radiation-induced ureteral stricture (RIUS) is complex, requiring chronic drainage or morbid definitive open reconstruction. Herein, we report our multi-institutional comprehensive experience with robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) in patients with RIUSs. Patients and Methods: In a retrospective review of our multi-institutional RUR database between January 2013 and January 2020, we identified patients with RIUSs. Five major reconstruction techniques were utilized: end-to-end (anastomosing the bladder to the transected ureter) and side-to-side (anastomosing the bladder to an anterior ureterotomy proximal to the stricture without ureteral transection) ureteral reimplantation, buccal or appendiceal mucosa graft ureteroplasty, appendiceal bypass graft, and ileal ureter interposition. When necessary, adjunctive procedures were performed for mobility (i.e., psoas hitch) and improved vascularity (i.e., omental wrap). Outcomes of surgery were determined by the absence of flank pain (clinical success) and absence of obstruction on imaging (radiological success). Results: A total of 32 patients with 35 ureteral units underwent RUR with a median stricture length of 2.5 cm (interquartile range [IQR] 2-5.5). End-to-end and side-to-side reimplantation techniques were performed in 21 (60.0%) and 8 (22.9%) RUR cases, respectively, while 4 (11.4%) underwent an appendiceal procedure. One patient (2.9%) required buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty, while another needed an ileal ureter interposition. The median operative time was 215 minutes (IQR 177-281), estimated blood loss was 100 mL (IQR 50-150), and length of stay was 2 days (IQR 1-3). One patient required repair of a small bowel leak. Another patient died from a major cardiac event and was excluded from follow-up calculations. At a median follow-up of 13 months (IQR 9-22), 30 ureteral units (88.2%) were clinically and radiologically effective. Conclusion: RUR can be performed in patients with RIUSs with excellent outcomes. Surgeons must be prepared to perform adjunctive procedures for mobility and improved vascularity due to poor tissue quality. Repeat procedures for RIUSs heighten the risk of necrosis and failure.

Multi-institutional Experience Comparing Outcomes of Adult Patients Undergoing Secondary Versus Primary Robotic Pyeloplasty.

OBJECTIVE: To describe surgical techniques and peri-operative outcomes with secondary robotic pyeloplasty (RP), and compare them to those of primary RP. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our multi-institutional, collaborative of reconstructive robotic ureteral surgery (CORRUS) database for all consecutive patients who underwent RP between April 2012 and September 2019. Patients were grouped according to whether they underwent a primary or secondary pyeloplasty (performed for a recurrent stricture after previously failed pyeloplasty). Perioperative outcomes and surgical techniques were compared using nonparametric independent sample median tests and chi-square tests; P < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Of 158 patients, 28 (17.7%) and 130 (82.3%) underwent secondary and primary RP, respectively. Secondary RP, compared to primary RP, was associated with a higher median estimated blood loss (100.0 vs 50.0 milliliters, respectively; P < .01) and longer operative time (188.0 vs 136.0 minutes, respectively; P = .02). There was no difference in major (Clavien >2) complications (P = .29). At a median follow-up of 21.1 (IQR: 11.8-34.7) months, there was no difference in success between secondary and primary RP groups (85.7% vs 92.3%, respectively; P = .44). Buccal mucosa graft onlay ureteroplasty was performed more commonly (35.7% vs 0.0%, respectively, P < .01) and near-infrared fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green was utilized more frequently (67.9% vs 40.8%, respectively; P < .01) for secondary vs primary repair. CONCLUSION: Although performing secondary RP is technically challenging, it is a safe and effective method for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction after a previously failed pyeloplasty. Buccal mucosa graft onlay ureteroplasty and utilization of near-infrared fluorescence with indocyanine green may be particularly useful in the re-operative setting.