» Articles » PMID: 39762685

The Use of Laser-assisted Cart Positioning Significantly Reduces the Docking Time of Multimodular Robotic Systems

Overview
Journal J Robot Surg
Publisher Springer
Date 2025 Jan 6
PMID 39762685
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The Hugo RAS system is characterized by its multimodular design, which leads to an increased docking effort. Exact data for docking time and the learning curve is missing. We describe for the first time the use of a laser-guided cart positioning to reduce the docking time. In this prospective monocentric study, the docking time was evalutated for a consecutive series of pelvic surgeries with the Hugo RAS system. In a subgroup, a cross-line laser was adapted at the cart for positioning using fix points at the ceiling. The medical personnel were classified as "inexperienced" with ≤ 5 consecutive dockings and as "experienced" with > 5 consecutive dockings. From 10/2023 to 08/2024, 82 procedures were performed with the Hugo RAS. For the evaluation 75 procedures could be considered. The mean docking time was 7.6 ± 3.5 min. There was a reduction in docking time from 13.5 ± 3.7 min in the first 5 procedures to 4.4 ± 0.9 min in the last 5 procedures (p < 0.001). Docking with laser (n = 45) was faster than without laser (n = 30) (6.2 ± 2.5 vs. 9.8 ± 3.7 min, p < 0.001). Faster docking time was observed with inexperienced surgical nursing staff with laser than without laser (10.4 ± 3.7 vs. 5.4 ± 1.4 min; p < 0.001). With experienced nursing staff, the laser had no influence (6.6 ± 1.3 vs. 6.7 ± 2.9 min; p = 0.9). As a reference docking time for daVinci Xi procedures was 2.4 ± 1.7 min (n = 5). Laser-guided cart positioning has a significant impact on docking time, especially for unexperienced medical personnel. Especially in the times of experienced staff shortage, laser-guided cart positioning can save operating time.

References
1.
Wang L, Yang J, Li X, Li K, Wan S, Chen S . Perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of Da Vinci vs. Hugo RAS for robot‑assisted radical prostatectomy: evidence based on controlled studies. J Robot Surg. 2024; 18(1):379. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-02146-8. View

2.
Maynou L, Mehtsun W, Serra-Sastre V, Papanicolas I . Patterns of adoption of robotic radical prostatectomy in the United States and England. Health Serv Res. 2021; 56 Suppl 3:1441-1461. PMC: 8579206. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13706. View

3.
Niklas C, Saar M, Berg B, Steiner K, Janssen M, Siemer S . da Vinci and Open Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Analysis of Insurance Costs. Urol Int. 2015; 96(3):287-94. DOI: 10.1159/000431104. View

4.
Balestrazzi E, Paciotti M, Piro A, Piramide F, Bravi C, Peraire Lores M . Comparative analysis of robot-assisted simple prostatectomy: the HUGO™ RAS system versus the DaVinci® Xi system. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023; 27(1):122-128. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-023-00726-7. View

5.
Brime Menendez R, Garcia Rojo E, Hevia Palacios V, Feltes Ochoa J, Justo Quintas J, Lista Mateos F . Da Vinci vs. Hugo RAS for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparative single-center study. World J Urol. 2024; 42(1):336. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-05045-7. View