Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 18, 2025
Robotics in Surgery: A Modular Robotic Platform Driven Gastric Wedge Resection
Published on: February 7, 2025
Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Performed with Different Robotic Platforms: First Comparative Evidence Between
Carlo Andrea Bravi1, Eleonora Balestrazzi2, Manon De Loof3
1Department of Urology, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwziekenhuis Hospital, Aalst, Belgium; ORSI Academy, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Urology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Background:
In the field of robotic surgery, there is a lack of comparative evidence on surgical and functional outcomes of different robotic platforms.
Objective:
To assess the outcomes of patients receiving robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) at a high-volume robotic center with daVinci and HUGO robot-assisted surgery (RAS) surgical systems.
Design, Setting, And Participants:
We analyzed the data of 542 patients undergoing RARP ± extended pelvic lymph node dissection at OLV hospital (Aalst, Belgium) between 2021 and 2023. All procedures were performed by six surgeons using daVinci or HUGO RAS robots; the use of one platform rather than the other did not follow any specific preference and/or indication.
Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis:
Multivariable analyses investigated the association between robotic system (daVinci vs HUGO RAS) and surgical outcomes after adjustment for patient- and tumor-related factors. Urinary continence recovery was defined as the use of no/one safety pad.
Results And Limitations:
A total of 378 (70%) and 164 (30%) patients underwent RARP with daVinci and HUGO RAS surgical systems, respectively. Despite a higher rate of palpable disease in the HUGO RAS group (34% vs 25%), baseline characteristics did not differ between the groups (all p > 0.05). After adjusting for confounders, we did not find evidence of a difference between the groups with respect to operative time (estimate: 16.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -6.35, 39.78; p = 0.12), estimated blood loss (estimate: 3.12; 95% CI: -67.03, 73.27; p = 0.9), and postoperative Clavien-Dindo ≥2 complications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.66; 95% CI: 0.34, 8.15; p = 0.5). On final pathology, 55 (15%) and 20 (12%) men in, respectively, the daVinci and the HUGO RAS group had positive surgical margins (PSMs; p = 0.5). On multivariable analyses, we did not find evidence of an association between a robotic system and PSMs (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.56, 2.07; p = 0.8). Similarly, the odds of recovering continence did not differ between daVinci and HUGO RAS cases after both 1 mo (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.38; p = 0.4) and 3 mo (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.49, 2.79; p = 0.7).
Conclusions:
Among patients receiving RARP with daVinci or HUGO RAS surgical platforms, we did not find differences in surgical and functional outcomes between the robots. This may be a result of a standardized surgical technique that allowed surgeons to transfer their skills between robotic systems. Awaiting future investigations with longer follow-up, these results have important implications for patients, surgeons, and health care policymakers.
Patient Summary:
We compared surgical and functional outcomes of patients receiving robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with daVinci versus HUGO robot-assisted surgery (RAS) robots. The two platforms were able to achieve similar outcomes, suggesting that the introduction of HUGO RAS is safe and allows for optimal outcomes after radical prostatectomy.
