A comprehensive evaluation and meta-analysis of the perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy using the DaVinci vs the Hugo RAS surgical platforms.

Because of the increasing popularity of Hugo RAS as a surgical platform, a comparison examination of intraoperative and oncological outcomes across DaVinci and Hugo RAS robotic surgery platforms is urgently needed. We carried out a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the literature of current research, comprehensively searching PubMed, Cochrane and Embase for eligible studies comparing the results between the DaVinci and Hugo RAS. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria were followed in the conduct of this study, with language restricted to English and a final search date of June 2024. We excluded articles composed solely of conference abstracts and irrelevant content. Composite outcomes were assessed using weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (ORs). The risk of bias in individual research was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and heterogeneity and bias risk were controlled for using a sensitivity analysis. Six studies in all were considered, comprising 1025 patients, including 626 DaVinci patients and 399 Hugo RAS patients. Review Manager V5.4.1 software (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was utilized to conduct the meta-analysis, including 6 trials, which demonstrated that compared to Hugo RAS, DaVinci was associated with statistically significant differences in several outcomes: a reduction in operative time (OT) (WMD - 8.46, 95% CI - 13.56 to 3.36; p = 0.001), an increase in estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD 41.68, 95% CI 23.59 to 59.77; p < 0.00001), and an increased pelvic lymphadenectomy ratio (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.05-2.05; p = 0.01). On the contrary, there were no statistically noteworthy differences in the length of hospital stay (LOS) between the two teams (WMD - 0.05, 95% CI - 0.14 to 0.04; p = 0.25), nerve sparing (unilateral or bilateral) (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68-1.35; p = 0.8), postoperative complications (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.50-2.64; p = 0.75), or positive surgical margins (PSM) (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.76-1.54; p = 0.68). Although DaVinci offers shorter operating times (OT) and increased pelvic lymph node dissection rates, Hugo RAS demonstrates lower estimated blood loss (EBL). Overall, Hugo RAS Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) results seem to be similar to those obtained with the DaVinci system. Further research and long-term follow-up are necessary to ascertain durable oncological and functional outcomes, allowing doctors to switch between robotic systems and use their skills. These findings are crucial for patients, surgeons, and healthcare policymakers and warrant future studies with extended follow-up.

Comparison of single-port versus multi-port robotic assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative and oncological outcomes.

The safety and efficacy of single-port and multi-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN, respectively) were assessed for treating partial nephrectomy in this study. A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was conducted up to June 2024 to compare studies on SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN. Primary outcomes included perioperative results, complications, and oncological outcomes. Eight studies involving 1014 patients were analyzed. For binary outcomes, comparisons were performed using odds ratios (OR), and for continuous variables, weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The search failed to discover significant meaningful variations in operating times (p = 0.54), off-clamp procedure (P = 0.36), blood loss (p = 0.31), positive surgical margins (PSMs) (p = 0.78), or major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3) (p = 0.68) between SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN. However, shorter hospital stays (WMD - 0.26 days, 95% CI - 0.36 to - 0.15; p < 0.00001) and longer warm ischemia times (WIT) (WMD 3.13 min, 95% CI 0.81-5.46; p = 0.008) were related to SP-RAPN, and higher transfusion rate (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.31-6.80; p = 0.009) compared to MP-RAPN. SP-RAPN performed better in terms of hospital stay but had slightly higher rates of transfusion, off-clamp procedures, and warm ischemia time (WIT) compared to MP-RAPN. As an emerging technology, preliminary research suggests that SP-RAPN is a feasible and safe method for carrying out a nephrectomy partial. However, compared to MP-RAPN, it shows inferior outcomes regarding (WIT) and transfusion rates.

Perioperative results of single-port vs multi-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy via peritoneal approach: a meta-analysis.

To compare the perioperative outcomes of single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP) and multiport robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (MP-RARP) via transperitoneal approach, we conducted a comprehensive database search of eligible studies up to October 2022 and compared their results. This study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was performed to control for heterogeneity and risk of bias. A total of six articles were included, involving 926 patients, among which 256 underwent SP-RARP and 670 underwent MP-RARP. Comparing the two, SP-RARP was associated with shorter hospitalization time (- 0.5 days; 95% CI - 1.02, - 0.06, p < 0.05) and less intraoperative blood loss (- 29.88 ml; 95% CI - 45.66, - 14.10, p < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in any complications, operative time, positive surgical margins, or short-term follow-up outcomes (continence and potency at 3 months). These findings provide reference data for the selection of surgical methods in performing transperitoneal RP and support further research on the broad applicability of the SP platform.