Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Clinical Research
  • Published:

Single-port transvesical versus open simple prostatectomy: a perioperative comparative study

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 26, pages 538–542 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective

To compare the initial perioperative outcomes of single-port transvesical simple prostatectomy (SP RASP) patients to those of open simple prostatectomy (OSP).

Patients and methods

Perioperative data from 42 consecutive patients with BPH who underwent SP RASP were prospectively reviewed. Similarly, data from forty-three consecutive patients who underwent the standard OSP, were retrospectively collected. Through direct suprapubic bladder access, prostatic enucleation was performed using the prostatic capsule as a landmark. Then a complete vesicourethral mucosal advancement flap was accomplished. OSP was performed according to the standard approach. Demographics, Intra- and perioperative data were analyzed and assessed with a descriptive analysis.

Results and limitations

Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, except for the preoperative median post-void residual volume, which was higher in the OSP group (p = 0.004). The SP RASP group had less intraoperative estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), no need for continuous bladder irrigation (p < 0.001), and less in-hospital opioid use (p < 0.001). Patients in the SP RASP group were discharged on postoperative day zero, compared to a median of 2 days for OSP (p < 0.001). The median Foley catheter duration was 7 days for SP RASP, compared to a median of 10 days for OSP (p < 0.001). SP RASP group had fewer postoperative complications, however, this did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion

SP RASP is an alternative approach in treating surgical BPH. It may offer patients less morbidity in comparison to OSP.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Illustration of the SP RASP procedure.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Only institutions with IRB-approved sharing agreements will be able to access data upon request.

References

  1. Xu XF, Liu GX, Guo YS, Zhu HY, He DL, Qiao XM, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence and year lived with disability for benign prostatic hyperplasia from 1990 to 2019. Am J Mens Health 2021;15:15579883211036786.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Lerner LB, McVary KT, Barry MJ, Bixler BR, Dahm P, Das AK, et al. Management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: AUA GUIDELINE PART II-surgical evaluation and treatment. J Urol. 2021;206:818–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan 2021. ISBN 978-94-92671-13-4

  4. Varkarakis I, Kyriakakis Z, Delis A, Protogerou V, Deliveliotis C. Long-term results of open transvesical prostatectomy from a contemporary series of patients. Urology. 2004;64:306–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Suer E, Gokce I, Yaman O, Anafarta K, Göğüş O. Open prostatectomy is still a valid option for large prostates: a high-volume, single-center experience. Urology. 2008;72:90–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gratzke C, Schlenker B, Seitz M, Karl A, Hermanek P, Lack N, et al. Complications and early postoperative outcome after open prostatectomy in patients with benign prostatic enlargement: results of a prospective multicenter study. J Urol. 2007;177:1419–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sotelo R, Clavijo R, Carmona O, Garcia A, Banda E, Miranda M, et al. Robotic simple prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;179:513–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mariano MB, Graziottin TM, Tefilli MV. Laparoscopic prostatectomy with vascular control for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 2002;167:2528–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mariano MB, Tefilli MV, Graziottin TM, Morales CM, Goldraich IH. Laparoscopic prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia-a six-year experience. Eur Urol. 2006;49:127–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McCullough TC, Heldwein FL, Soon SJ, Galiano M, Barret E, Cathelineau X, et al. Laparoscopic versus open simple prostatectomy: an evaluation of morbidity. J Endourol. 2009;23:129–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Autorino R, Zargar H, Mariano MB, Sanchez-Salas R, Sotelo RJ, Chlosta PL, et al. Perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic simple prostatectomy: a European-American multi-institutional analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;68:86–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Xia Z, Li J, Yang X, Jing H, Niu C, Li X, et al. Robotic-assisted vs. open simple prostatectomy for large prostates: a meta-analysis. Front Surg. 2021;8:695318.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Bhanvadia R, Ashbrook C, Gahan J, Mauck R, Bagrodia A, Margulis V, et al. Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic vs open simple prostatectomy in the modern robotic era: results from the National Inpatient Sample. BJU Int. 2021;128:168–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Scarcella S, Castellani D, Gauhar V, Teoh JY, Giulioni C, Piazza P, et al. Robotic-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy: Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Investig Clin Urol. 2021;62:631–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kaouk J, Sawczyn G, Wilson C, Aminsharifi A, Fareed K, Garisto J, et al. Single-port percutaneous transvesical simple prostatectomy using the SP robotic system: initial clinical experience. Urology. 2020;141:173–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Scarpero HM, Fiske J, Xue X, Nitti VW. American Urological Association Symptom Index for lower urinary tract symptoms in women: correlation with degree of bother and impact on quality of life. Urology. 2003;61:1118–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Haefeli M, Elfering A. Pain assessment. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:S17–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Desai MM, Fareed K, Berger AK, Astigueta JC, Irwin BH, Aron M, et al. Single-port transvesical enucleation of the prostate: a clinical report of 34 cases. BJU Int. 2010;105:1296–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fareed K, Zaytoun OM, Autorino R, White WM, Crouzet S, Yakoubi R, et al. Robotic single port suprapubic transvesical enucleation of the prostate (R-STEP): initial experience. BJU Int. 2012;110:732–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Steinberg RL, Passoni N, Garbens A, Johnson BA, Gahan JC. Initial experience with extraperitoneal robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy using the da Vinci SP surgical system. J Robot Surg. 2020;14:601–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Laan BJ, Nieuwkerk PT, Geerlings SE. Patients knowledge and experience with urinary and peripheral intravenous catheters. World J Urol. 2020;38:57–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dotzauer R, La Torre A, Thomas A, Brandt MP, Böhm K, Mager R, et al. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy versus open simple prostatectomy: a single-center comparison. World J Urol. 2021;39:149–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mourmouris P, Keskin SM, Skolarikos A, Argun OB, Karagiannis AA, Tufek I, et al. A prospective comparative analysis of robot-assisted vs open simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int. 2019;123:313–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nestler S, Bach T, Herrmann T, Jutzi S, Roos FC, Hampel C, et al. Surgical treatment of large volume prostates: a matched pair analysis comparing the open, endoscopic (ThuVEP) and robotic approach. World J Urol. 2019;37:1927–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Glickman Urological & Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Mahmoud Abou Zeinab, Aaron Kaviani, Ethan Ferguson, Alp T. Beksac, Zeyad Schwen, Bradley Gill, Petar Bajic, James Ulchaker, Mohamed Eltemamy & Jihad Kaouk

Authors
  1. Mahmoud Abou Zeinab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aaron Kaviani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ethan Ferguson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alp T. Beksac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zeyad Schwen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bradley Gill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Petar Bajic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. James Ulchaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mohamed Eltemamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jihad Kaouk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Design: MAZ and JK; Extracting and analyzing data: MAZ, AK, ATB, and EF; Results interpretation: MAZ, JK, PB, BG, JU, ZS, and ME; Manuscript writing: MAZ; Critical revision: JK, PB, BG, JU, ZS, and ME.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jihad Kaouk.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

JK is a speaker bureau for Intuitive Surgical Company.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abou Zeinab, M., Kaviani, A., Ferguson, E. et al. Single-port transvesical versus open simple prostatectomy: a perioperative comparative study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 26, 538–542 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-022-00566-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-022-00566-x

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links