» Articles » PMID: 38539541

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy by the Hugo Robotic-Assisted Surgery (RAS) System and the Da Vinci System: A Comparison Between the Two Platforms

Overview
Journal Cancers (Basel)
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Oncology
Date 2024 Mar 28
PMID 38539541
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: In a previous study, we proved that an experienced urologist is more likely to adapt to the Hugo RAS system. Based on this, we further examine various parameters in this study. Parameters included in this study consisted of console time, functional outcomes, and oncological outcomes.

Materials And Methods: A total of 60 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed by a single surgeon using the da Vinci (DV) system (n = 30) or the Hugo RAS system (n = 30) between March 2023 and August 2023 were included in the analysis. The intraoperative operative time was categorized into vesicourethral anastomosis time and overall console time. Functional and oncological outcomes were documented at the 1st and 3rd postoperative months. Parametric and non-parametric methods were adopted after checking skewness and kurtosis, and an α value of 5% was used to determine the significance.

Results: The vesicourethral anastomosis time was significantly lengthened (Hedge's g: 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.34-1.39; J factor = 0.987). However, the overall console time was not affected. The functional (postoperative 3rd month: = 0.130) and oncological outcomes (postoperative 3rd month: = 0.103) were not significantly different. We also found that the adverse effect on surgical specimens and positive surgical margins was not affected ( = 0.552).

Conclusion: During the process of adaptation, although intricate motions (such as the vesicourethral anastomosis time) would be lengthened, the overall console time would not change remarkably. In this process, the functional and oncological outcomes would not be compromised. This encourages urologists to adopt the Hugo RAS system in RARP if they have previous experiences of using the DV system, since their trifecta advantage would not be compromised.

Citing Articles

The use of laser-assisted cart positioning significantly reduces the docking time of multimodular robotic systems.

Baunacke M, Hirtsiefer C, Herout R, Mehralivand S, Oelkers S, Kaske O J Robot Surg. 2025; 19(1):46.

PMID: 39762685 PMC: 11703870. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-02196-y.


Hugo™ Versus daVinci™ Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: 1-Year Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Functional and Oncological Outcomes.

Gandi C, Marino F, Totaro A, Scarciglia E, Presutti S, Bellavia F J Clin Med. 2024; 13(22).

PMID: 39598054 PMC: 11594860. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13226910.


First Worldwide Report of a Total Colectomy with the Hugo RAS Platform.

Santos M, Brandao P J Clin Med. 2024; 13(20).

PMID: 39458021 PMC: 11508557. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13206071.


Perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of Da Vinci vs. Hugo RAS for robot‑assisted radical prostatectomy: evidence based on controlled studies.

Wang L, Yang J, Li X, Li K, Wan S, Chen S J Robot Surg. 2024; 18(1):379.

PMID: 39443428 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-02146-8.


Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic Radical Prostatectomy with Hugo™ RAS versus daVinci Surgical Platform: Propensity Score-Matched Comparative Analysis.

Gandi C, Marino F, Totaro A, Scarciglia E, Bellavia F, Bientinesi R J Clin Med. 2024; 13(11).

PMID: 38892868 PMC: 11173080. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13113157.


References
1.
Seo H, Lee N, Son S, Kim D, Rha K, Lee S . Comparison of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Open Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Yonsei Med J. 2016; 57(5):1165-77. PMC: 4960383. DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165. View

2.
Larkins K, Mohan H, Gray M, Costello D, Costello A, Heriot A . Transferability of robotic console skills by early robotic surgeons: a multi-platform crossover trial of simulation training. J Robot Surg. 2022; 17(3):859-867. PMC: 10209232. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-022-01475-w. View

3.
Rao P . Robotic surgery: new robots and finally some real competition!. World J Urol. 2018; 36(4):537-541. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2213-y. View

4.
Silberstein J, Eastham J . Significance and management of positive surgical margins at the time of radical prostatectomy. Indian J Urol. 2014; 30(4):423-8. PMC: 4220383. DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.134240. View

5.
Lin Y, Yuan L, Tseng C, Hsieh T, Huang Y, Huang C . Comparison of senhance and da vinci robotic radical prostatectomy: short-term outcomes, learning curve, and cost analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023; 27(1):116-121. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-023-00717-8. View