scholarly journals A comparison of the da Vinci Xi vs. da Vinci Si surgical systems for radical prostatectomy

BMC Surgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kun-Yang Lei ◽  
Wen-Jie Xie ◽  
Sheng-Qiang Fu ◽  
Ming Ma ◽  
Ting Sun
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Da Vinci ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Da Vinci Xi ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Term Efficacy ◽  
Da Vinci Si ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background To compare the perioperative and short-term efficacy and cost of the da Vinci Xi and da Vinci Si surgical systems for radical prostatectomy. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 175 patients with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci Si or Xi surgical systems in our hospital from June 2019 to June 2020. Of the 175 patients, 82 underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci Xi surgery system, and 93 patients underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci Si surgical system. The perioperative outcomes, short-term efficacy and costs were compared between the two groups. Results The anesthesia time, operation time, docking time, indwelling catheter time and postoperative bed rest time in the Xi group were shorter than those in the Si group (respectively, 268.8 min vs. 219.3 min, P = 0.001; 228.2 min vs. 259.6 min, P < 0.001; 7.4 min vs. 12.7 min, P < 0.001; 8.6 d vs. 9.7 d, P = 0.036; 2.2 d vs. 2.6 d, P = 0.002). However, the total cost of hospitalization and the cost of intraoperative consumables in the Xi group were higher than those in the Si group (84,740.7 vs. 76,739.1 ¥, P = 0.003; 13,199.4 vs. 10,823.0 ¥, P = 0.019). Conclusions Although the cost of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is higher, compared with the Si system, the Xi system has better perioperative outcomes and can provide similar short-term efficacy and oncology outcomes.

Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Perioperative Outcomes of 1500 Cases

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 2299-2306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vipul R. Patel ◽  
Kenneth J. Palmer ◽  
Geoff Coughlin ◽  
Srinivas Samavedi
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Robot Assisted

PE07: Short-term results after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared to open surgery

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
A. Wallerstedt ◽  
S. Tyritzis ◽  
T. Thorsteinsdottir ◽  
S. Carlsson ◽  
J. Stranne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Short Term

Short-term Results after Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Compared to Open Radical Prostatectomy

2015 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 660-670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Wallerstedt ◽  
Stavros I. Tyritzis ◽  
Thordis Thorsteinsdottir ◽  
Stefan Carlsson ◽  
Johan Stranne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Open Radical Prostatectomy

Safety and feasibility of salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15171-e15171
Author(s):  
Andre Luis de Castro Abreu ◽  
Sanket Chauhan ◽  
Adrian Stuart Fairey ◽  
Ignacio Camacho ◽  
Alvin Goh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Erectile Function ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Biochemical Failure ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Urinary Continence ◽  
Recurrent Prostate Cancer ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Short Term

e15171 Background: The safety and feasibility of salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (sRARP) for recurrent prostate cancer is unclear. Herein we report short-term cancer control, functional, and perioperative outcomes in a multi-institutional cohort. Methods: Between July 2007 and October 2011, 38 consecutive men underwent sRARP for recurrent prostate cancer at the University of Southern California (n=14) or Global Robotics Institute (n=24). Failed primary therapy was varied (external beam radiotherapy [EBRT; n=14]; interstitial brachytherapy [IBT; n=11]; EBRT + IBT [n=5]; high-intensity focused ultrasound [n=3]; cryoablation [n=3]; other [n=2]). The main outcomes were immediate biochemical failure (IBF), positive surgical margins (PSM), urinary continence and erectile function at 3 months, and complications within 90 days of surgery. Immediate biochemical failure was defined as a PSA > 0.2 ng/ml. Urinary continence was defined as the use of no pads and erectile function was defined as a SHIM score > 21. Complications were classified and graded using the Clavien system. Results: The median age was 68 years (50-83 years) and median preoperative PSA was 4.1 ng/ml (0.4-15.2 ng/ml). Preoperative biopsy Gleason score was ≤6 (n=7), 7 (n=18), and ≥8 (n=12). All procedures were completed without the need for open conversion. No patient experienced an intra-operative complication. Median estimated blood loss was 100 ml (30-300 ml) and operative time was 1.5 h (1-6h). Median length of hospital stay was 1 day (1-7 days). The median duration of urethral catheterization was 12 days (4-48 days). IBF occurred in 9 (29%) patients and PSM occurred in 7 (18%) patients. Urinary continence and erectile function occurred in 9 (34%) and 0 patients, respectively. One or more postoperative complications occurred in 12 (31%) patients. Low grade (I-II) and high grade (III-IV) complications occurred in 8 (21%) and 4 (10%) patients, respectively. No patient died. Conclusions: Salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is safe and feasible. Short-term cancer control and perioperative morbidity were acceptable; however, functional recovery was poor. To date, this is the largest series worldwide.

Single-port robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience and technique with the da Vinci® SP platform

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (6) ◽  
pp. 1022-1027 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan W. Dobbs ◽  
Whitney R. Halgrimson ◽  
Ikenna Madueke ◽  
Hari T. Vigneswaran ◽  
Jessica O. Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Da Vinci ◽  
Single Port ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Initial Experience ◽  
Robot Assisted

scholarly journals Radical prostatectomy technique in the robotic evolution: from da Vinci standard to single port—a single surgeon pathway

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Francavilla ◽  
Alessandro Veccia ◽  
Ryan W. Dobbs ◽  
Fabio Zattoni ◽  
Hari T. Vigneswaran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Da Vinci ◽  
Single Port ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Standard Group ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Conversion To Open Surgery ◽  
Major Complications ◽  
The Difference

AbstractTo describe perioperative outcomes following robot-assisted prostatectomy performed by a single surgeon during transitions between da Vinci standard/Si/Xi and the single port. Perioperative data were retrospectively evaluated of the first 40 consecutive robot-assisted radical prostatectomies performed by a single surgeon using the da Vinci standard, Si, Xi and single port. A total of 160 patients were included. We matched standard vs Si (Match 1), Si vs Xi (Match 2) and Xi vs single port (Match 3) cohort. Mann–Whitney and Fisher’s tests were used to test the difference among the groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were adopted to evaluate the predictors of overall and major complications. Single-port procedures in Match 3 showed significant shorter median operative time than Xi. Both Si and single-port groups showed significantly less median blood loss, a shorter median length of stay, respectively, than standard group in Match 1 and than Xi group in Match 3. 1 standard group patient required conversion to open surgery for an unsolvable conflict of the robotic arms. No other intraoperative complications were noted. On univariate and multivariate analyses, the da Vinci platform model was not a predicting factor of major complications (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3). We described how technological progress impacted peri and postoperative outcomes during transitions between robotic surgical platforms for radical prostatectomy. In particular, the technological improvements associated to the increased surgeon’s expertise made the transition to the single port safe and effective when compared with previous platforms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document