Comparative analysis of robot-assisted simple prostatectomy: the HUGO™ RAS system versus the DaVinci® Xi system.
Journal
Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases
ISSN: 1476-5608
Titre abrégé: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815755
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Sep 2023
29 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
30
06
2023
accepted:
15
09
2023
revised:
31
08
2023
medline:
29
9
2023
pubmed:
29
9
2023
entrez:
28
9
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy (RASP) has emerged as a promising alternative in the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). However, there is currently a lack of comparative studies evaluating different robotic platforms for performing RASP. Therefore, we aimed to compare perioperative and functional outcomes of RASP performed using the HUGO™ RAS System versus the DaVinci® Xi System. Forty consecutive cases of RASP performed between May 2021 and March 2023 with the HUGO™ RAS and the DaVinci® Xi at OLV Hospital (Aalst, Belgium) were included in this retrospective study. All surgeries were performed by three experienced surgeons using the same approach. Baseline characteristics, peri-operative and functional outcomes were collected and compared between the two groups. The population was equally divided between the two groups with 20 patients in each group. There were no significant differences in preoperative patient characteristics between the two groups, except for the presence of bladder stones prior to the surgery (p = 0.03). No significant differences in total operative time and console time between the two groups were reported (p = 0.3). No cases required conversion to open surgery or additional port placement. During one case performed with the HUGO™ RAS, a malfunctioning monopolar curved shear had to be replaced. However, there was no statistically significant differences in terms of technical robotic problems between the groups (p = 0.3). There was no significant difference between the two groups in perioperative and functional outcomes (all p ≥ 0.2). We did not observe any statistically significant difference in perioperative and functional outcomes in case of RASP performed with the HUGO™ RAS System and with the DaVinci® Xi System. These findings provide compelling support for considering the HUGO™ RAS as a promising tool for robot-assisted procedures, thereby expanding the utilization of robotics for benign conditions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy (RASP) has emerged as a promising alternative in the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). However, there is currently a lack of comparative studies evaluating different robotic platforms for performing RASP. Therefore, we aimed to compare perioperative and functional outcomes of RASP performed using the HUGO™ RAS System versus the DaVinci® Xi System.
METHODS
METHODS
Forty consecutive cases of RASP performed between May 2021 and March 2023 with the HUGO™ RAS and the DaVinci® Xi at OLV Hospital (Aalst, Belgium) were included in this retrospective study. All surgeries were performed by three experienced surgeons using the same approach. Baseline characteristics, peri-operative and functional outcomes were collected and compared between the two groups.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The population was equally divided between the two groups with 20 patients in each group. There were no significant differences in preoperative patient characteristics between the two groups, except for the presence of bladder stones prior to the surgery (p = 0.03). No significant differences in total operative time and console time between the two groups were reported (p = 0.3). No cases required conversion to open surgery or additional port placement. During one case performed with the HUGO™ RAS, a malfunctioning monopolar curved shear had to be replaced. However, there was no statistically significant differences in terms of technical robotic problems between the groups (p = 0.3). There was no significant difference between the two groups in perioperative and functional outcomes (all p ≥ 0.2).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We did not observe any statistically significant difference in perioperative and functional outcomes in case of RASP performed with the HUGO™ RAS System and with the DaVinci® Xi System. These findings provide compelling support for considering the HUGO™ RAS as a promising tool for robot-assisted procedures, thereby expanding the utilization of robotics for benign conditions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37770613
doi: 10.1038/s41391-023-00726-7
pii: 10.1038/s41391-023-00726-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
EAU-Guidelines-on-Non-Neurogenic-Male-LUTS-2023.
Sotelo R, Clavijo R, Carmona O, Garcia A, Banda E, Miranda M, et al. Robotic simple prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;179:513–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.065
pubmed: 18076926
Scarcella S, Castellani D, Gauhar V, Teoh JYC, Giulioni C, Piazza P, et al. Robotic-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Investig Clin Urol. 2021;62:631–40.
doi: 10.4111/icu.20210297
pubmed: 34729963
pmcid: 8566792
Pandolfo SD, Del Giudice F, Chung BI, Manfredi C, De Sio M, Damiano R, et al. Robotic assisted simple prostatectomy versus other treatment modalities for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 6500 cases. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases. Springer Nature; 2022.
Kowalewski KF, Hartung FO, von Hardenberg J, Haney CM, Kriegmair MC, Nuhn P, et al. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy vs endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative trials. J Endourol. 2022;8:1018–28.
doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0788
Bhanvadia R, Ashbrook C, Gahan J, Mauck R, Bagrodia A, Margulis V, et al. Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic vs open simple prostatectomy in the modern robotic era: results from the National Inpatient Sample. BJU Int. 2021;128:168–77.
doi: 10.1111/bju.15258
pubmed: 32981194
Farinha R, Puliatti S, Mazzone E, Amato M, Rosiello G, Yadav S, et al. Potential contenders for the leadership in robotic surgery. J Endourol. 2022;36:317–26.
doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0321
pubmed: 34579555
Rassweiler JJ, Autorino R, Klein J, Mottrie A, Goezen AS, Stolzenburg JU, et al. Future of robotic surgery in urology. BJU Int. 2017;120:822–41.
doi: 10.1111/bju.13851
pubmed: 28319324
Bravi CA, Paciotti M, Sarchi L, Mottaran A, Nocera L, Farinha R, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with the novel Hugo robotic system: initial experience and optimal surgical set-up at a tertiary referral robotic center. Eur Urol. 2022;82:233–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.04.029
pubmed: 35568597
Gallioli A, Uleri A, Gaya JM, Territo A, Aumatell J, Verri P, et al. Initial experience of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with Hugo
Bravi CA, Sarchi L, Mottaran A, Paciotti M, Farinha R, Piazza P, et al. Feasibility and optimal setting of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with the novel “Hugo” robotic system: a pre-clinical study. Urol Video J. 2022;15:100164.
Mottaran A, Paciotti M, Bravi CA, Sarchi L, Nocera L, Piro A, et al. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy with the novel HUGO
Pokorny M, Novara G, Geurts N, Dovey Z, De Groote R, Ploumidis A, et al. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic enlargement: surgical technique and outcomes in a high-volume robotic centre. Eur Urol. 2015;68:451–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.03.003
pubmed: 25887786
Develtere D, Mazzone E, Berquin C, Sinatti C, Veys R, Farinha R, et al. Transvesical approach in robot-assisted bladder Diverticulectomy: surgical technique and outcome. J Endourol. 2022;36:313–6.
doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0366
pubmed: 34693723
Sarchi L, Mottaran A, Bravi CA, Paciotti M, Farinha R, Piazza P, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy feasibility and setting with the Hugo
doi: 10.1111/bju.15819
pubmed: 35689414
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
pubmed: 15273542
pmcid: 1360123
Bravi CA, Paciotti M, Balestrazzi E, Piro A, Piramide F, Peraire M, et al. Outcomes of Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy with the Hugo RAS surgical system: initial experience at a high-volume robotic center. Eur Urol Focus. 2023;9:642–4.
Mottaran A, Bravi CA, Sarchi L, Paciotti M, Nocera L, Piro A, et al. Robot-assisted sacropexy with the novel HUGO robot-assisted surgery system: initial experience and surgical setup at a tertiary referral robotic center. J Endourol. 2022;37:35–41.
doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0495
pubmed: 36053673
Paciotti M, Bravi CA, Mottaran A, Nocera L, Sarchi L, Piro A, et al. Nerve‐sparing robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy with the <scp>HUGOTM</scp> robot‐assisted surgery system using the ‘Aalst technique.’ BJU Int. [Internet]. 2023 Jun; Available from: https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bju.16084 .
Panico G, Vacca L, Campagna G, Caramazza D, Mastrovito S, Lombisani A, et al. The first 60 cases of robotic sacrocolpopexy with the novel HUGO RAS system: feasibility, setting and perioperative outcomes. Front Surg. 2023;10:1181824.
Monterossi G, Pedone Anchora L, Gueli Alletti S, Fagotti A, Fanfani F, Scambia G. The first European gynaecological procedure with the new surgical robot Hugo
doi: 10.52054/FVVO.14.1.014
pubmed: 35373554
pmcid: 9612853
Raffaelli M, Voloudakis N, Pennestrì F, Gallucci P, Modesti C, Salvi G, et al. Feasibility of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass with the novel robotic platform HUGO
Raffaelli M, Gallucci P, Voloudakis N, Pennestrì F, De Cicco R, Arcuri G, et al. The new robotic platform Hugo
doi: 10.1007/s13304-022-01410-6
pubmed: 36333563
Ragavan N, Bharathkumar S, Chirravur P, Sankaran S, Mottrie A. Evaluation of Hugo RAS system in major urologic surgery: our initial experience. J Endourol. 2022;36:1029–35. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35156838/ .
doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0015
pubmed: 35156838
Peraire Lores M, Bravi CA, Paciotti M, Sarchi L, Nocera L, et al. Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty With The Novel HUGO RAS System: surgical setup at a high volume robotic center. J Urol. [Internet]. 2023 Apr [cited 2023 Jun 6];209(Supplement 4). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003221.06 .
Balestrazzi E, Mottaran A, Bravi CA, Nocera L, Paciotti M, Piro A, et al. Benign Pelvic Surgery with HUGO RAS system: our experience in a tertiary referral robotic center. J Urol. [Internet]. 2023 Apr [cited 2023 Jun 6];209(Supplement 4). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003254.01 .
Mottrie A, Van Migem P, De Naeyer G, Schatteman P, Carpentier P, Fonteyne E. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncologic and functional results of 184 Cases. Eur Urol. 2007;52:746–51.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.02.029
pubmed: 17329020
Chiara Sighinolfi M, Terzoni S, Scanferla E, Paolo Bianchi P. et al. Prior robotic console expertise may improve basic skills at the new Hugo RAS simulator: results from a cohort trial and implications for skill transference across platforms. Eur Urol Open Sci.2023;53:83–9. http://www.euopenscience.europeanurology.com/article/S2666168323001982/fulltext .
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.04.008
Larkins KM, Mohan HM, Gray M, Costello DM, Costello AJ, Heriot AG. et al. Transferability of robotic console skills by early robotic surgeons: a multi-platform crossover trial of simulation training. J Robot Surg. 2022;17:859–67. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11701-022-01475-w .
doi: 10.1007/s11701-022-01475-w
pubmed: 36324049
pmcid: 10209232
Elorrieta V, Villena J, Kompatzki Á, Velasco A, Salvadó JA. ROBOT assisted laparoscopic surgeries for nononcological urologic disease: initial experience with hugo ras system. Urology. 2023;174:118–25. http://www.goldjournal.net/article/S0090429523001012/fulltext .
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2023.01.042
pubmed: 36804552
Gallagher AG, De Groote R, Paciotti M, Mottrie A. Proficiency-based progression training: a scientific approach to learning surgical skills. Eur Urol. 2022;81:394–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.004
pubmed: 35074249
Cardi A, Palleschi G, Patruno G, Tuffu G, D’Amico FE, De Vico A, et al. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for treatment of large prostatic adenomas: surgical technique and outcomes from a high-volume robotic centre. World J Urol. 2023;41:515–20.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04262-2
pubmed: 36567350
Autorino R, Zargar H, Mariano MB, Sanchez-Salas R, Sotelo RJ, Chlosta PL, et al. Perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic simple prostatectomy: a European-American multi-institutional analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;68:86–94.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.044
pubmed: 25484140
Abou Zeinab M, Kaviani A, Ferguson E, Beksac AT, Schwen Z, Gill B, et al. Single-port transvesical versus open simple prostatectomy: a perioperative comparative study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis [Internet]. 2022 [Accessed 6 Jun 2023]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35851618/ .
Banapour P, Patel N, Kane CJ, Cohen SA, Parsons JK. Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy: a systematic review and report of a single institution case series. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014;17:1–5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24323329/ .
doi: 10.1038/pcan.2013.52
pubmed: 24323329
Pavan N, Zargar H, Sanchez-Salas R, Castillo O, Celia A, Gallo G, et al. Robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopy for simple prostatectomy: multicenter comparative outcomes. Urology. 2016;91:104–10.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.02.032
pubmed: 26948530
Ragavan N, Bharathkumar S, Chirravur P, Sankaran S. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy utilizing Hugo RAS platform: initial experience. J Endourol. 2023;37:147–50.
doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0461
pubmed: 36205571