First Impressions of the New da Vinci 5 Robotic Platform and Experience in Performing Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Over the past two decades, robotic surgery has seen substantial advances, with significant growth in novel platforms, particularly since 2019. As a high-volume center experienced with various robotic systems, we share our initial impressions of the new da Vinci 5 platform for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Key improvements include enhanced console ergonomics, more precise operative imaging, and the integration of smart commands for streamlined surgical control. Notably, force feedback instruments offer the potential for reduced tissue trauma, although further studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes and cost effectiveness. Our early experiences suggest that surgeons familiar with previous da Vinci models, particularly the Xi platform, will find the transition to the da Vinci 5 seamless, with minimal learning curve adjustments. Using propensity score matching, we compared perioperative outcomes for 50 da Vinci 5 RARP procedures (performed after the learning curve) with 150 da Vinci Xi cases. In our experience, optimal performance and perioperative outcomes were obtained with both models. Further studies are needed to identify any clinically significant advantages of one platform over the other. Patient summary: We compared outcomes for patients undergoing removal of the prostate using two different surgical robots (da Vinci Xi and da Vinci 5). Optimal operative outcomes were obtained with both robots, but further studies are needed to evaluate whether one robot is clinically superior to the other.

The Intraoperative Complications Assessment and Reporting with Universal Standards (ICARUS) Global Surgical Collaboration Project: Development of Criteria for Reporting Adverse Events During Surgical Procedures and Evaluating Their Impact on the Postoperative Course.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) are surgical and anesthesiologic complications. Despite the availability of grading criteria, iAEs are infrequently reported in the surgical literature and in cases for which iAEs are reported, these events are described with significant heterogeneity. OBJECTIVE: To develop Intraoperative Complications Assessment and Reporting with Universal Standards (ICARUS) Global Surgical Collaboration criteria to standardize the assessment, reporting, and grading of iAEs. The ultimate aim is to improve our understanding of the nature and frequency of iAEs and our ability to counsel patients regarding surgical procedures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The present study involved the following steps: (1) collecting criteria for assessing, reporting, and grading of iAEs via a comprehensive umbrella review; (2) collecting additional criteria via a survey of a panel of experienced surgeons (first round of a modified Delphi survey); (3) creating a comprehensive list of reporting criteria; (4) combining criteria acquired in the first two steps; and (5) establishing a consensus on clinical and quality assessment utility as determined in the second round of the Delphi survey. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Panel inter-rater agreement and consistency were assessed as the overall percentage agreement and Cronbach's α. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The umbrella review led to nine common criteria for assessing, grading, and reporting iAEs, and review of iAE grading systems led to two additional criteria. In the first Delphi round, 35 surgeons responded and two criteria were added. In the second Delphi round, 13 common criteria met the threshold for final guideline inclusion. All 13 criteria achieved the consensus minimum of 70%, with agreement on the usefulness of the criteria for clinical and quality improvement ranging from 74% to 100%. The mean inter-rater agreement was 89.0% for clinical improvement and 88.6% for quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The ICARUS Global Collaboration criteria might aid in identifying important criteria when reporting iAEs, which will support all those involved in patient care and scientific publishing. PATIENT SUMMARY: We consulted a panel of experienced surgeons to develop a set of guidelines for academic surgeons to follow when publishing surgical studies. The surgeon panel proposed a list of 13 criteria that may improve global understanding of complications during specific procedures and thus improve the ability to counsel patients on surgical risk.