The protocol designates postoperative positive surgical margin rate as the primary oncological endpoint. Investigators reported this choice reflects the trial’s central question: can a single-port extraperitoneal approach using the KangDuo robotic system match the radicality of the established multiport extraperitoneal procedure? The study team framed the comparison as a non-inferiority trial, intending to demonstrate equivalent oncological clearance rather than superiority. The source did not report numerical non-inferiority margins or power calculations in the abstract; those statistical specifics were not provided in the medRxiv summary.
This is described as a single-center, prospective study with 1:1 randomization. The cohort will include men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer staged cT1c–cT2cN0M0. The protocol randomizes participants to either the experimental single-port extraperitoneal robotic radical prostatectomy arm or the control multiport extraperitoneal robotic radical prostatectomy arm, both performed with the KangDuo system. The authors did not include sample size, enrollment period, or specific stratification factors in the presented abstract, so those methodological details remain unreported in the source document.
All participants will receive standardized enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, according to the protocol description. The trial team emphasized uniform perioperative management to reduce confounding from varying postoperative care. The abstract identifies the KangDuo system as the operative platform for both arms but does not provide technical parameters—such as port placement strategies, instrument complement, or console setup—for either the single-port or multiport procedures. The source did not report surgeon credentialing, learning-curve provisions, or whether intraoperative conversion criteria will be tracked in the dataset available in the abstract.
The protocol lists perioperative parameters and postoperative recovery metrics alongside medium-term functional recovery and oncological outcomes as secondary endpoints. Specifically, investigators plan to assess urinary and sexual function recovery in a mid-term timeframe and track perioperative safety signals. The medRxiv abstract does not provide specific measurement instruments (for example, which validated questionnaires will be used for urinary or sexual function), nor does it give exact follow-up intervals or predefined timepoints for oncological surveillance; those components are not reported in the summary.
Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Lishui Central Hospital (the Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University), with an approval number stated in the source. The authors affirm that written informed consent will be obtained from participants. Trial registration is provided: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2600125669. The article is posted as a medRxiv preprint and has not been peer reviewed; the authors explicitly note that the report should not be used to guide clinical practice at this stage. The source stated that no datasets were generated or analyzed at the time of posting and that data will be made available from the corresponding author upon study completion.
The abstract acknowledges a scarcity of high-level prospective evidence comparing single-port and multiport extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy—this gap is the trial’s stated rationale. The protocol is single-center; the source did not indicate multicenter expansion, which limits generalizability until replication occurs. The medRxiv summary did not include statistical details such as sample size, non-inferiority margin, power, or planned interim analyses; those are important methodological items absent from the reported abstract. The report also omitted details on surgeon experience thresholds, specific functional outcome instruments, and precise follow-up duration for medium-term oncological outcomes. These unanswered items will influence interpretation when results are posted.
The trial promises to compare surgical radicality and perioperative recovery between approaches using a domestic robotic platform. Investigators hypothesize non-inferior oncological results for the single-port approach coupled with potential minimally invasive benefits and similar safety and functional recovery compared with the multiport technique. Because this is a preprint protocol and data are not yet available, readers should await full trial reporting, peer review, and publication of prespecified statistical plans and datasets before drawing clinical conclusions.