Comparing the Approach to Radical Prostatectomy Using the Multiport da Vinci Xi and da Vinci SP Robots: A Propensity Score Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes

Eur Urol. 2021 Mar;79(3):393-404. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.042. Epub 2020 Dec 24.


Background: Use of the single-port da Vinci SP robotic platform for various urological procedures has been described by several groups. However, the comparative performance of the SP robot in relation to earlier models such as the da Vinci Xi is still unclear.

Objective: To compare intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes between the da Vinci Xi and SP robots for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) in a referral center.

Design, setting, and participants: Data were prospectively collected for patients undergoing RP from June 2019 to April 2020 in a single center. The da Vinci SP was used for 71 patients and the da Vinci Xi for 875 patients. After propensity score (PS) matching, two groups of 71 patients were selected for the comparative study.

Intervention: RP via a transperitoneal approach using the same technique steps and anatomy access with both robot consoles.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: A PS analysis was performed using the covariates age, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, Sexual Health Inventory for Men score, American Urological Association symptom score, prostate size, prostate-specific antigen levels, Gleason score, D'Amico risk group, and degree of nerve-sparing. Intraoperative performance and short-term functional (continence and potency) and oncological outcomes were compared between the groups.

Results and limitations: Median follow-up was 4.4 mo (interquartile range [IQR] 1.6-7.2) for the SP group and 3.2 mo (IQR 1.6-4.8) for the Xi group (p = 0.2). The median total operative time and median console time were both significantly higher in the SP group, with median differences of 14 min (95% confidence interval [CI] 9-19) and 5 min (95% CI 0-5), respectively. The proportion of patients with blood loss of >100 ml was significantly lower in the SP group (difference of 27%, 95% CI 12-42%). No intra- or postoperative complications were reported in either group. There were no significant differences in pain scores at 6, 12, and 18 h or in positive surgical margin rates between the groups. The SP group had a significantly higher percentage of extraprostatic extension than the Xi group (difference of 16%, 95% CI 4.6-27%). None of the patients experienced biochemical recurrence during follow-up. The difference in continence rates at 45 d between the SP and Xi groups was 11% (95% CI -5.6% to 28%) and the difference in potency rates at 45 d was -7.3% (95% CI -21% to 6.2%). The short-term follow-up for comparison of functional and oncological outcomes is a limitation.

Conclusions: Despite differences in trocar placement and technology between the two da Vinci consoles, the SP has satisfactory intraoperative performance compared to the Xi. SP surgery can be performed safely and effectively during the initial learning phase. However, longer-term follow-up is needed to provide further evidence on the impact of SP implementation on functional and oncological outcomes.

Patient summary: We compared intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes for patients who underwent radical prostatectomy using two different robots, the da Vinci Xi and the single-port da Vinci SP. We found that operative time was longer for the Single Port console. Studies with long-term follow-up are needed to compare the functional and oncological outcomes.

Keywords: Continence; Potency; Prostate cancer; Recovery; Robotic surgery.

MeSH terms

  • Humans
  • Male
  • Propensity Score
  • Prostate / surgery
  • Prostatectomy
  • Prostatic Neoplasms* / surgery
  • Robotic Surgical Procedures* / adverse effects
  • Robotics*