A comprehensive evaluation and meta-analysis of the perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy using the DaVinci vs the Hugo RAS surgical platforms.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Anneng Hu, Zongying Lv, Guiyuan Chen, Yuhang Lin, Xiaole Zhu, Junyang Li, Xiaodong Yu
{"title":"A comprehensive evaluation and meta-analysis of the perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy using the DaVinci vs the Hugo RAS surgical platforms.","authors":"Anneng Hu, Zongying Lv, Guiyuan Chen, Yuhang Lin, Xiaole Zhu, Junyang Li, Xiaodong Yu","doi":"10.1007/s11701-024-02107-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Because of the increasing popularity of Hugo RAS as a surgical platform, a comparison examination of intraoperative and oncological outcomes across DaVinci and Hugo RAS robotic surgery platforms is urgently needed. We carried out a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the literature of current research, comprehensively searching PubMed, Cochrane and Embase for eligible studies comparing the results between the DaVinci and Hugo RAS. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria were followed in the conduct of this study, with language restricted to English and a final search date of June 2024. We excluded articles composed solely of conference abstracts and irrelevant content. Composite outcomes were assessed using weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (ORs). The risk of bias in individual research was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and heterogeneity and bias risk were controlled for using a sensitivity analysis. Six studies in all were considered, comprising 1025 patients, including 626 DaVinci patients and 399 Hugo RAS patients. Review Manager V5.4.1 software (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was utilized to conduct the meta-analysis, including 6 trials, which demonstrated that compared to Hugo RAS, DaVinci was associated with statistically significant differences in several outcomes: a reduction in operative time (OT) (WMD - 8.46, 95% CI - 13.56 to 3.36; p = 0.001), an increase in estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD 41.68, 95% CI 23.59 to 59.77; p < 0.00001), and an increased pelvic lymphadenectomy ratio (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.05-2.05; p = 0.01). On the contrary, there were no statistically noteworthy differences in the length of hospital stay (LOS) between the two teams (WMD - 0.05, 95% CI - 0.14 to 0.04; p = 0.25), nerve sparing (unilateral or bilateral) (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68-1.35; p = 0.8), postoperative complications (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.50-2.64; p = 0.75), or positive surgical margins (PSM) (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.76-1.54; p = 0.68). Although DaVinci offers shorter operating times (OT) and increased pelvic lymph node dissection rates, Hugo RAS demonstrates lower estimated blood loss (EBL). Overall, Hugo RAS Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) results seem to be similar to those obtained with the DaVinci system. Further research and long-term follow-up are necessary to ascertain durable oncological and functional outcomes, allowing doctors to switch between robotic systems and use their skills. These findings are crucial for patients, surgeons, and healthcare policymakers and warrant future studies with extended follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":47616,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Robotic Surgery","volume":"18 1","pages":"343"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","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/s11701-024-02107-1","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

Because of the increasing popularity of Hugo RAS as a surgical platform, a comparison examination of intraoperative and oncological outcomes across DaVinci and Hugo RAS robotic surgery platforms is urgently needed. We carried out a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the literature of current research, comprehensively searching PubMed, Cochrane and Embase for eligible studies comparing the results between the DaVinci and Hugo RAS. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria were followed in the conduct of this study, with language restricted to English and a final search date of June 2024. We excluded articles composed solely of conference abstracts and irrelevant content. Composite outcomes were assessed using weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (ORs). The risk of bias in individual research was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and heterogeneity and bias risk were controlled for using a sensitivity analysis. Six studies in all were considered, comprising 1025 patients, including 626 DaVinci patients and 399 Hugo RAS patients. Review Manager V5.4.1 software (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was utilized to conduct the meta-analysis, including 6 trials, which demonstrated that compared to Hugo RAS, DaVinci was associated with statistically significant differences in several outcomes: a reduction in operative time (OT) (WMD - 8.46, 95% CI - 13.56 to 3.36; p = 0.001), an increase in estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD 41.68, 95% CI 23.59 to 59.77; p < 0.00001), and an increased pelvic lymphadenectomy ratio (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.05-2.05; p = 0.01). On the contrary, there were no statistically noteworthy differences in the length of hospital stay (LOS) between the two teams (WMD - 0.05, 95% CI - 0.14 to 0.04; p = 0.25), nerve sparing (unilateral or bilateral) (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68-1.35; p = 0.8), postoperative complications (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.50-2.64; p = 0.75), or positive surgical margins (PSM) (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.76-1.54; p = 0.68). Although DaVinci offers shorter operating times (OT) and increased pelvic lymph node dissection rates, Hugo RAS demonstrates lower estimated blood loss (EBL). Overall, Hugo RAS Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) results seem to be similar to those obtained with the DaVinci system. Further research and long-term follow-up are necessary to ascertain durable oncological and functional outcomes, allowing doctors to switch between robotic systems and use their skills. These findings are crucial for patients, surgeons, and healthcare policymakers and warrant future studies with extended follow-up.

使用达芬奇与雨果RAS手术平台进行机器人根治性前列腺切除术的围手术期和肿瘤治疗效果的综合评估和荟萃分析。
由于Hugo RAS作为一种手术平台越来越受欢迎,因此迫切需要对DaVinci和Hugo RAS机器人手术平台的术中和肿瘤结果进行比较研究。我们对目前的研究文献进行了全面的回顾和荟萃分析,在PubMed、Cochrane和Embase上全面搜索了符合条件的研究,比较了DaVinci和Hugo RAS的结果。本研究遵循系统综述和元分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)标准,语言限于英语,最终搜索日期为 2024 年 6 月。我们排除了仅由会议摘要和无关内容组成的文章。综合结果采用加权平均差(WMD)和几率比(OR)进行评估。个别研究的偏倚风险采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)进行评估,异质性和偏倚风险采用敏感性分析进行控制。共审议了六项研究,涉及 1025 名患者,其中包括 626 名 DaVinci 患者和 399 名 Hugo RAS 患者。利用Review Manager V5.4.1软件(Cochrane Collaboration,牛津,英国)进行了荟萃分析,包括6项试验,结果表明,与Hugo RAS相比,DaVinci与以下几项结果的差异具有统计学意义:手术时间(OT)缩短(WMD - 8.46,95% CI - 13.56 - 3.36;P = 0.001),估计失血量(EBL)增加(WMD 41.68,95% CI 23.59 - 59.77;P = 0.001)。
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 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信