@Article{cju.2026.079886,
AUTHOR = {Ryuta Tanimoto, Shota Inoue, Yuho Sano, Satoko Kamada, Kenji Sugino, Katsumi Sasaki, Kasumi Yoshinaga, Yuki Maruyama, Yusuke Tominaga, Satoshi Katayama, Shingo Nishimura, Kensuke Bekku, Takuya Sadahira, Takehiro Iwata, Kohei Edamura, Tomoko Kobayashi, Yasuyuki Kobayashi, Motoo Araki},
TITLE = {Comparison of patient-reported outcomes between supraumbilical and transumbilical camera port placement in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a prospective randomized trial},
JOURNAL = {Canadian Journal of Urology},
VOLUME = {},
YEAR = {},
NUMBER = {},
PAGES = {{pages}},
URL = {http://www.techscience.com/CJU/online/detail/27541},
ISSN = {1488-5581},
ABSTRACT = { <b>Objectives:</b> Supraumbilical (SU) camera ports are typically used during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy; however, transumbilical (TU) incisions may offer potential cosmetic advantages. This study aimed to compare patient-reported outcomes, including cosmetic outcomes, postoperative pain, and quality of life, between these two approaches. <b>Methods:</b> Between January 2019 and February 2022, 98 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomized to either a SU (n = 50) or TU (n = 48) camera port group, stratified by prostate volume, Gleason score, and age. Body image and cosmetic scale scores, postoperative pain, and health-related quality of life outcomes were prospectively assessed. <b>Results:</b> Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were comparable between groups. Body image and cosmetic scale scores did not differ significantly. Pain scores on postoperative day 1 were significantly higher in the TU group (median difference 1 point; TU 3.0 [IQR 2.3–5.0] vs. SU 3.0 [IQR 2.0–4.0]; p = 0.0165), although the absolute difference was modest and did not persist at POD 7. Quality-of-life scores and perioperative complication rates were comparable. <b>Conclusions:</b> This randomized controlled trial suggests that TU camera port placement may not provide a cosmetic advantage and may be associated with increased early postoperative pain compared with a SU approach in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP).},
DOI = {10.32604/cju.2026.079886}
}