Cost analysis of new robotic competitors: a comparison of direct costs for initial hospital stay between Da Vinci and Hugo RAS for radical prostatectomy.

Robotic surgery with Da Vinci has revolutionized the treatment of several diseases, including prostate cancer; nevertheless, costs remain the major drawback. Recently, new robotic platforms entered the market aiming to reduce costs and improve the access to robotic surgery. The aim of the study is to compare direct cost for initial hospital stay of radical prostatectomy performed with two different robotic systems, the Da Vinci and the new Hugo RAS system. This is a projection study that applies cost of robotic surgery, derived from a local tender, to the clinical course of robotic radical prostatectomy (RALP) performed with Da Vinci and Hugo RAS. The study was performed in a public referral center for robotic surgery equipped with both systems. The cost of robotic surgery from a local tender were considered and included rent, annual maintenance, and a per-procedure fee covering the setup of four robotic instruments. Those costs were applied to patients who underwent RALP with both systems since November 2022. The primary endpoint is to evaluate direct costs of initial hospital stay for Da Vinci and Hugo RAS, by considering equipment costs (as derived from the tender), and costs of theater and of hospitalization. The direct per-procedure cost is €2,246.31 for a Da Vinci procedure and €1995 for a Hugo RALP. In the local setting, Hugo RAS provides 11% of cost saving for RALP. By applying this per-procedure cost to our clinical data, the expenditure for the entire index hospitalization is € 6.7755,1 for Da Vinci and € 6.637,15 for Hugo RALP. The new Hugo RAS system is willing to reduce direct expenditures of robotic surgery for RALP; furthermore, it provides similar peri-operative outcomes compared to the Da Vinci. However, other drivers of costs should be taken into account, such as the duration of OR use-that is more than just console time and may depend on the facility's background and organization. Further variations in direct costs of robotic systems are related to caseload, local agreements and negotiations. Thus, cost comparison of new robotic platform still remains an ongoing issue.

First case of robot-assisted radical cystectomy and intracorporeal neobladder reconstruction with the Hugo RAS system: step-by-step surgical setup and technique.

Robotic assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is a standard option for the treatment of bladder cancer. Currently, novel platforms are entering the market and the Hugo RAS (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) is a new system consisting of an open console with 3D-HD screen and a multi-modular fashion. Even if several series are already available for radical prostatectomy, to now a full description of RARC performed with Hugo RAS is still lacking. We report the first case of RARC with intracorporeal neobladder performed with the Hugo RAS-and another case of RARC with ureterostomy. Both patients were affected by MIBC. Case 1 was a 61-year-old patient without comorbidities (CCI 4), in which a Bordeaux ileal neobladder was scheduled after previous NAC. The second was the case of a 70-year-old one with CCI 7 and BMI 35; in this case, a ureterostomy was planned. Details of the robotic system: one 11 mm endoscope port was placed on the midline 2 cm above the umbilicus. Another two 8 mm robotic ports were symmetrically placed under vision on a transversal line-located 1 cm below the umbilicus. A third robotic port was positioned on the left side in a W configuration. All ports were located at least 9 cm between each other. Finally, two assistant ports were positioned in the right abdominal site. All arm-carts were parked 45-60 cm from the operative bed, before the docking process begins. Three arm-carts were parked on the left side, the assistant and the scrub nurse worked on the right side, while the energy tower stayed at the foot of the bed, according to the previous description of Hugo RAS robotic radical prostatectomy. The endoscope arm-cart is docked first, then the adjacent left carts are docked; finally, the surgeon's right-hand cart is docked from the right side of the bed. The docking angles and tilt we applied were: endoscope: 175°; minus 45°; surgeon left hand 140°; minus 30°; surgeon right hand 225°; minus 30°; fourth arm 125°; plus 15°. The instruments we used were those fitting our conventional four-instrument setup for RARC: monopolar shears, Maryland forceps, needle driver and Cadiere as the fourth arm. The procedures were completed without technical errors or technological failures-requiring a change in surgical strategy. Docking time was approximately 35 min; console time up to urethral dissection was 150 and 140 min in Case 1 and 2. The time for pelvic nodal dissection was approximately 37 min for both. The multi-modularity fashion of the Hugo RAS allowed an easy management of the bowel in Case 1; the absence of robotic staplers required the use of the laparoscopic ones, managed by an adjunctive assistant with room within the cart. In conclusion, RARC with the Hugo RAS is a feasible procedure able to reproduce all surgical steps without critical errors or complications requiring a change in surgical planning. Urinary diversion with intracorporeal reconstruction is feasible as well, with adequate preliminary outcomes.