Comparative Analysis of Single-Port vs. Multi-Port Extraperitoneal Radical Cystectomy with Bricker Ileal Conduit Urinary Diversion for Bladder Cancer: Perioperative Outcomes and Technical Considerations

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Abstract Background Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) has already been a standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, with multiport laparoscopic approaches being well-established. However, single-port laparoscopic ERC has emerged as a less invasive alternative, though its comparative efficacy and safety remain understudied. Methods We conducted a retrospective study comparing 72 patients who underwent multiport ERC with 31 patients who received single-port ERC. Perioperative outcomes, including operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), lymph node yield, and 90-day complications were analyzed. Results There were no significant differences in operative time (211.0 vs. 206.0 min, p = 0.720), EBL (175.5 vs. 147.0 mL, p = 0.292), LOS (12.5 vs. 11.0 days, p = 0.422), or lymph node yield (17.5 vs. 15.0 nodes, p = 0.164) between the two groups. While readmission rates (29.2% vs 19.4%, p = 0.299) and positive surgical margins (9.7% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.720) were similar, single-port ERC was associated with a significantly lower rate of 90-day complications (31.9% vs 12.9%, p = 0.044). No differences were observed in major complications such as ileus ,bleeding and UTI. Conclusions Single-port ERC is a safe and feasible alternative to multiport ERC, offering comparable perioperative outcomes with a reduced risk of early complications. These findings support the potential of single-port techniques to enhance patient recovery while maintaining oncologic efficacy in bladder cancer surgery.
Full text 13,115 characters · extracted from preprint-html · click to expand
Comparative Analysis of Single-Port vs. Multi-Port Extraperitoneal Radical Cystectomy with Bricker Ileal Conduit Urinary Diversion for Bladder Cancer: Perioperative Outcomes and Technical Considerations | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Comparative Analysis of Single-Port vs. Multi-Port Extraperitoneal Radical Cystectomy with Bricker Ileal Conduit Urinary Diversion for Bladder Cancer: Perioperative Outcomes and Technical Considerations Yuchen Bai, Jiarui Jiang, Yunkai Yang, Xuanhan Hu, Pu Zhang, Dahong Zhang, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9328878/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) has already been a standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, with multiport laparoscopic approaches being well-established. However, single-port laparoscopic ERC has emerged as a less invasive alternative, though its comparative efficacy and safety remain understudied. Methods We conducted a retrospective study comparing 72 patients who underwent multiport ERC with 31 patients who received single-port ERC. Perioperative outcomes, including operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), lymph node yield, and 90-day complications were analyzed. Results There were no significant differences in operative time (211.0 vs. 206.0 min, p = 0.720), EBL (175.5 vs. 147.0 mL, p = 0.292), LOS (12.5 vs. 11.0 days, p = 0.422), or lymph node yield (17.5 vs. 15.0 nodes, p = 0.164) between the two groups. While readmission rates (29.2% vs 19.4%, p = 0.299) and positive surgical margins (9.7% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.720) were similar, single-port ERC was associated with a significantly lower rate of 90-day complications (31.9% vs 12.9%, p = 0.044). No differences were observed in major complications such as ileus ,bleeding and UTI. Conclusions Single-port ERC is a safe and feasible alternative to multiport ERC, offering comparable perioperative outcomes with a reduced risk of early complications. These findings support the potential of single-port techniques to enhance patient recovery while maintaining oncologic efficacy in bladder cancer surgery. Single-Port Bricker ileal Bladder cancer Extraperitoneal cystectomy RARC Full Text Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9328878","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":625394425,"identity":"5ca82eb0-a477-44f6-aa78-a95fef7051cd","order_by":0,"name":"Yuchen Bai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yuchen","middleName":"","lastName":"Bai","suffix":""},{"id":625394428,"identity":"9a668775-8264-49d9-beed-c59a136c84a0","order_by":1,"name":"Jiarui Jiang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jiarui","middleName":"","lastName":"Jiang","suffix":""},{"id":625394429,"identity":"242e86f0-e462-4a67-b209-6fb0c1a8c067","order_by":2,"name":"Yunkai Yang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yunkai","middleName":"","lastName":"Yang","suffix":""},{"id":625394430,"identity":"58636fe1-ad59-4ed6-af69-fc1aa2f6a1b6","order_by":3,"name":"Xuanhan Hu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xuanhan","middleName":"","lastName":"Hu","suffix":""},{"id":625394431,"identity":"e155392b-0c48-469c-bf6b-b869c4b990b2","order_by":4,"name":"Pu Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pu","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":625394432,"identity":"0478b112-2916-4fca-bb85-9c8e2400b56d","order_by":5,"name":"Dahong Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dahong","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":625394433,"identity":"d5a3e06d-52d3-4373-a023-f7b70b827f19","order_by":6,"name":"Jing Quan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jing","middleName":"","lastName":"Quan","suffix":""},{"id":625394435,"identity":"60a463ae-3e92-4876-8b12-602d6e7db784","order_by":7,"name":"Xiaolong Qi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xiaolong","middleName":"","lastName":"Qi","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-06 00:53:17","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9328878/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9328878/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108007721,"identity":"3acc28c8-4fda-4dbe-ac79-519e3fcadf52","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-28 13:01:32","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1027477,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Singleportvs.Multiportbrickersub.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9328878/v1_covered_58627311-2a46-4392-967e-8e4878bedaf1.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Comparative Analysis of Single-Port vs. Multi-Port Extraperitoneal Radical Cystectomy with Bricker Ileal Conduit Urinary Diversion for Bladder Cancer: Perioperative Outcomes and Technical Considerations","fulltext":[],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":false,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":true,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":true,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Single-Port, Bricker ileal, Bladder cancer, Extraperitoneal cystectomy, RARC","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9328878/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9328878/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRobot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) has already been a standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, with multiport laparoscopic approaches being well-established. However, single-port laparoscopic ERC has emerged as a less invasive alternative, though its comparative efficacy and safety remain understudied.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe conducted a retrospective study comparing 72 patients who underwent multiport ERC with 31 patients who received single-port ERC. Perioperative outcomes, including operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), lymph node yield, and 90-day complications were analyzed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere were no significant differences in operative time (211.0 vs. 206.0 min, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.720), EBL (175.5 vs. 147.0 mL, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.292), LOS (12.5 vs. 11.0 days, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.422), or lymph node yield (17.5 vs. 15.0 nodes, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.164) between the two groups. While readmission rates (29.2% vs 19.4%, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.299) and positive surgical margins (9.7% vs. 6.5%, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.720) were similar, single-port ERC was associated with a significantly lower rate of 90-day complications (31.9% vs 12.9%, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.044). No differences were observed in major complications such as ileus ,bleeding and UTI.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSingle-port ERC is a safe and feasible alternative to multiport ERC, offering comparable perioperative outcomes with a reduced risk of early complications. These findings support the potential of single-port techniques to enhance patient recovery while maintaining oncologic efficacy in bladder cancer surgery.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Comparative Analysis of Single-Port vs. Multi-Port Extraperitoneal Radical Cystectomy with Bricker Ileal Conduit Urinary Diversion for Bladder Cancer: Perioperative Outcomes and Technical Considerations","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-23 13:32:17","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9328878/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"159fbb10-8aab-4d4e-a95b-72dcd6ed776f","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 23rd, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-28T10:25:47+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-23 13:32:17","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9328878","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9328878","identity":"rs-9328878","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: preprint-html

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-06-02T02:00:03.124865+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0