Home > Journals > Minerva Urology and Nephrology > Past Issues > Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2021 February;73(1) > Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2021 February;73(1):6-16



Publishing options
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as


REVIEW   Free accessfree

Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2021 February;73(1):6-16

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.20.03899-0


language: English

Applications of the da Vinci single port (SP) robotic platform in urology: a systematic literature review

Marcio COVAS MOSCHOVAS 1 , Seetharam BHAT 1, Travis ROGERS 1, David THIEL 2, Fikret ONOL 1, Shannon ROOF 1, Maria C. SIGHINOLFI 3, Bernardo ROCCO 3, Vipul PATEL 1

1 AdventHealth Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, USA; 2 Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA; 3 University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy

INTRODUCTION: Robotic surgical technology has evolved to include a new platform specifically designed for the single-port (SP) approach. Benefits of the da Vinci SP are still under investigation. This study aimed to review the urological literature since the first report of the use of the platform.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a systematic literature review of PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science databases on June 15, 2020 searching for all available articles of da Vinci SP use from December 2014 (date of the first clinical report of da Vinci SP in the urology) until June 1, 2020 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 43 articles were eligible for inclusion. Ten studies reported different surgeries and techniques on cadavers while the rest described the clinical experience of different groups. We divided our article and tables into preclinical experience with surgery on cadavers, radical prostatectomy (RP) approach, and multiple types of procedures described in the same study.
CONCLUSIONS: The application of da Vinci SP in urologic procedures after five years of the first clinical investigation is feasible and safe. Radical prostatectomy is the most common intervention performed with this robot. Some groups described benefits in terms of less postoperative pain and early discharge, especially with the extraperitoneal approach. However, further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are awaited.

KEY WORDS: Robotic surgical procedures; Urology; Systematic review

top of page