Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 1, 2026
Robotic Central Pancreatectomy with Roux-en-Y Pancreaticojejunostomy
Published on: November 20, 2021
Outpatient Robotic Urological Surgery: An Evidence-based Analysis
Angelo Orsini1, Francesco Lasorsa2, Gabriele Bignante3
1Department of Urology, Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA; Department of Urology, D'Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.
Background And Objective:
One of the primary advantages of minimally invasive surgery is the shorter hospitalization time, which can potentially allow "outpatient" (OP) procedures. The recent advent of single-port (SP) robotics has further fueled the debate on this topic. We sought to provide an evidence-based analysis of the safety, feasibility, and advantages of robotic urological surgery in the OP setting.
Methods:
A literature search in PubMed was conducted in June 2024 to identify studies on the feasibility and safety of OP robotic urological surgery. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria and the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome model were used to select retrospective and prospective studies. Data collected included patient characteristics, operative outcomes, same-day discharge (SDD), and complication and readmission rates. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data analysis and synthesis were performed using Review Manager and GraphPad Prism.
Key Findings And Limitations:
For 3291 patients in noncomparative studies, we found SDD rates of 46.17% for multiport (MP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), 77.35% for SP-RARP, 93.1% for robot-assisted radical or partial nephrectomy, and 93.3% for adrenalectomy. Among comparative studies involving 4130 patients, we found that the OP setting is feasible and safe. Comparison of overall complications between OP and inpatients (IP) settings revealed a relative risk (RR) of 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-0.91; p = 0.01) favoring OP. The risk of readmission was lower risk for OP than for IP surgery (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.85; p = 0.008). Comparison of MP-RARP and SP-RARP revealed that OP protocols are more easily achievable with SP-RARP (44.20% vs 79.59%; p < 0.001).
Conclusions And Clinical Implications:
OP robotic urological surgery is feasible and safe in selected patients and can enhance satisfaction and reduce costs. SP robotics could promote wider adoption of SDD protocols. Strict case selection minimizes complications. Differences in health care systems should be considered in future evaluations.
Patient Summary:
We examined the feasibility and safety of same-day hospital discharge after robot-assisted surgery for urology operations. We found that this option can be safely offered and may be even more viable if the use of robots allowing surgery through a single keyhole incision becomes more widespread.
