Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Performed with Different Robotic Platforms: First Comparative Evidence Between Da Vinci and HUGO Robot-assisted Surgery Robots.
Eur Urol Focus
; 10(1): 107-114, 2024 Jan.
Article
en En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-37634969
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
In the field of robotic surgery, there is a lack of comparative evidence on surgical and functional outcomes of different robotic platforms.OBJECTIVE:
To assess the outcomes of patients receiving robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) at a high-volume robotic center with daVinci and HUGO robot-assisted surgery (RAS) surgical systems. DESIGN, SETTING, ANDPARTICIPANTS:
We analyzed the data of 542 patients undergoing RARP ± extended pelvic lymph node dissection at OLV hospital (Aalst, Belgium) between 2021 and 2023. All procedures were performed by six surgeons using daVinci or HUGO RAS robots; the use of one platform rather than the other did not follow any specific preference and/or indication. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICALANALYSIS:
Multivariable analyses investigated the association between robotic system (daVinci vs HUGO RAS) and surgical outcomes after adjustment for patient- and tumor-related factors. Urinary continence recovery was defined as the use of no/one safety pad. RESULTS ANDLIMITATIONS:
A total of 378 (70%) and 164 (30%) patients underwent RARP with daVinci and HUGO RAS surgical systems, respectively. Despite a higher rate of palpable disease in the HUGO RAS group (34% vs 25%), baseline characteristics did not differ between the groups (all p > 0.05). After adjusting for confounders, we did not find evidence of a difference between the groups with respect to operative time (estimate 16.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] -6.35, 39.78; p = 0.12), estimated blood loss (estimate 3.12; 95% CI -67.03, 73.27; p = 0.9), and postoperative Clavien-Dindo ≥2 complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.66; 95% CI 0.34, 8.15; p = 0.5). On final pathology, 55 (15%) and 20 (12%) men in, respectively, the daVinci and the HUGO RAS group had positive surgical margins (PSMs; p = 0.5). On multivariable analyses, we did not find evidence of an association between a robotic system and PSMs (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.56, 2.07; p = 0.8). Similarly, the odds of recovering continence did not differ between daVinci and HUGO RAS cases after both 1 mo (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.45, 1.38; p = 0.4) and 3 mo (OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.49, 2.79; p = 0.7).CONCLUSIONS:
Among patients receiving RARP with daVinci or HUGO RAS surgical platforms, we did not find differences in surgical and functional outcomes between the robots. This may be a result of a standardized surgical technique that allowed surgeons to transfer their skills between robotic systems. Awaiting future investigations with longer follow-up, these results have important implications for patients, surgeons, and health care policymakers. PATIENTSUMMARY:
We compared surgical and functional outcomes of patients receiving robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with daVinci versus HUGO robot-assisted surgery (RAS) robots. The two platforms were able to achieve similar outcomes, suggesting that the introduction of HUGO RAS is safe and allows for optimal outcomes after radical prostatectomy.Palabras clave
Texto completo:
1
Base de datos:
MEDLINE
Asunto principal:
Robótica
/
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados
Idioma:
En
Revista:
Eur Urol Focus
Año:
2024
Tipo del documento:
Article