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

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Journal of Robotic Surgery Pub Date : 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1007/s11701-024-02146-8
Li Wang, Jian-Wei Yang, Xiaoran Li, Kun-Peng Li, Shun Wan, Si-Yu Chen, Li Yang
{"title":"Perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of Da Vinci vs. Hugo RAS for robot‑assisted radical prostatectomy: evidence based on controlled studies.","authors":"Li Wang, Jian-Wei Yang, Xiaoran Li, Kun-Peng Li, Shun Wan, Si-Yu Chen, Li Yang","doi":"10.1007/s11701-024-02146-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A comparison was conducted between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed using the Hugo RAS System and the Da Vinci System. We conducted an extensive search of online databases through September 2024. The data from eligible studies were pooled and analyzed with Review Manager 5.4, employing a random effects model. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to analyze continuous and categorical variables. A total of eight original studies, involving 1155 patients (HUGO-RARP: 468 vs. da Vinci-RARP: 687), were included. Compared with da Vinci-RARP, HUGO-RARP had a longer docking time (WMD: 6.2 min; 95% CI 4.25-8.14; p < 0.0001), while no significant differences were observed in total operative time, console time, bladder neck dissection time, seminal vesicle dissection time, vesicourethral anastomosis time, or pelvic lymph node dissection time between two systems. There were no significant differences in hospital stay, estimated blood loss, catheter duration, or complication rates. Likewise, oncological and functional outcomes were similar between the two systems. While these results suggest that the Hugo RAS system performs as well as the Da Vinci system in RARP, more randomized controlled studies are needed to further evaluate prognostic outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":47616,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Robotic Surgery","volume":"18 1","pages":"379"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Robotic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-02146-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A comparison was conducted between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed using the Hugo RAS System and the Da Vinci System. We conducted an extensive search of online databases through September 2024. The data from eligible studies were pooled and analyzed with Review Manager 5.4, employing a random effects model. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to analyze continuous and categorical variables. A total of eight original studies, involving 1155 patients (HUGO-RARP: 468 vs. da Vinci-RARP: 687), were included. Compared with da Vinci-RARP, HUGO-RARP had a longer docking time (WMD: 6.2 min; 95% CI 4.25-8.14; p < 0.0001), while no significant differences were observed in total operative time, console time, bladder neck dissection time, seminal vesicle dissection time, vesicourethral anastomosis time, or pelvic lymph node dissection time between two systems. There were no significant differences in hospital stay, estimated blood loss, catheter duration, or complication rates. Likewise, oncological and functional outcomes were similar between the two systems. While these results suggest that the Hugo RAS system performs as well as the Da Vinci system in RARP, more randomized controlled studies are needed to further evaluate prognostic outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
达芬奇与Hugo RAS机器人辅助前列腺癌根治术的围手术期、功能和肿瘤治疗效果:基于对照研究的证据。
我们对使用雨果RAS系统和达芬奇系统进行的机器人辅助前列腺癌根治术(RARP)进行了比较。我们对截至2024年9月的在线数据库进行了广泛检索。使用Review Manager 5.4对符合条件的研究数据进行了汇总和分析,并采用了随机效应模型。加权平均差 (WMD) 和带有 95% 置信区间 (CI) 的几率比 (OR) 用于分析连续变量和分类变量。共纳入了八项原始研究,涉及 1155 名患者(HUGO-RARP:468 对达芬奇-RARP:687)。与达芬奇-RARP相比,HUGO-RARP的对接时间更长(WMD:6.2分钟;95% CI 4.25-8.14;p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
8.70%
发文量
145
期刊介绍: The aim of the Journal of Robotic Surgery is to become the leading worldwide journal for publication of articles related to robotic surgery, encompassing surgical simulation and integrated imaging techniques. The journal provides a centralized, focused resource for physicians wishing to publish their experience or those wishing to avail themselves of the most up-to-date findings.The journal reports on advance in a wide range of surgical specialties including adult and pediatric urology, general surgery, cardiac surgery, gynecology, ENT, orthopedics and neurosurgery.The use of robotics in surgery is broad-based and will undoubtedly expand over the next decade as new technical innovations and techniques increase the applicability of its use. The journal intends to capture this trend as it develops.
期刊最新文献
A review of enhanced recovery after surgery concept in perioperative radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Patient reported health related quality of life outcomes after viable cryopreserved umbilical tissue placement directly over spared neurovascular bundles after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. Comparative perioperative outcomes of intravenous indocyanine green during robot-assisted cystectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia and bothersome LUTS-a retrospective cohort study. Correction: Body mass index influence on short-term perioperative results in robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1