Robot-assisted pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: initial experience with the novel avatera system

Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes of New Multiport Robotic Platforms in Urology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background and objective

Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has steadily become more prevalent in urology. The Da Vinci multiport surgical robot (DVM-SR) continues to lead the field. In recent years, new multiport surgical robots (NM-SRs) have been introduced to the market; however, their safety and efficacy remain unassessed. This study aims to give a comprehensive evaluation of the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of NM-SRs and a comparison with the DVM-SR.

Methods

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and clinicaltrial.gov to identify studies that evaluate NM-SRs in major urological surgeries assessing perioperative, functional, and oncological endpoints. A meta-analysis was performed comparing NM-SRs with the DVM-SR for safety, and functional and oncological outcomes.

Key findings and limitations

Seventy-four studies involving 5487 patients were included in the review. Nine platforms were studied: Hinotori, Hugo RAS, Revo-I, Versius, Avatera, Senhance, KangDuo Surgical Robot-01, Dexter, and Toumai. NM-SRs were used to perform robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP; 41 studies), partial nephrectomy (RAPN; 14 studies), radical nephrectomy (RARN; four studies), adrenalectomy (four studies), nephroureterectomy (two studies), RARN and thrombectomy (one study), colpopexy (four studies), pyeloplasty (seven studies), simple nephrectomy (four studies), simple prostatectomy (three studies), and ureteral surgery (four studies). Cystectomies with NM-SRs were described only in case reports and were excluded. The comparative analysis between NM-SRs and the DVM-SR showed similar outcomes in terms of intraoperative SATAVA grade ≥2 complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25, 3.1, p = 0.9 for RARP and OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.11, 3.3, p = 0.5 for RAPN), postoperative high-grade complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥IIIa, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.4, 2, p = 0.7 for RARP and OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.1, 3.3, p = 0.6 for RAPN), and positive surgical margins (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72, 1.1, p = 0.3 for RARP and OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.3, 9.1, p = 0.6 for RAPN). For patients undergoing RARP, biochemical recurrence and urinary continence rates at 3 mo were comparable (OR 0.99 [95% CI 0.5, 1.8, p = 1] and OR 0.99 [95% CI 0.77, 1.3, p = 0.9], respectively). The achievement of the trifecta for RAPN appeared to be similar between the included studies on NM-SRs and the DVM-SR (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.4, 4.4, p = 0.7). The small sample size of the included studies and the preliminary nature of the results represent the major limitations.

Conclusions and clinical implications

When compared with the DVM-SR, NM-SRs may offer similar safety, and oncological and functional outcomes across most surgeries for both benign and malignant diseases. Further research is needed to explore the potential of NM-SRs, given the promising initial findings.

Patient summary

New multiport surgical robots (NM-SRs) appear to be safe and effective compared with the Da Vinci surgical robotic system. However, further research is required to thoroughly assess their long-term outcomes and cost effectiveness. NM-SRs represent an opportunity to spread the use of robot-assisted surgery globally.

Evaluation of Clinical Research on Novel Multiport Robotic Platforms for Urological Surgery According to the IDEAL Framework: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background and objective

Several novel multiport robotic systems have been developed and introduced in clinical practice after regulatory approval. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the evolution status of novel robotic platforms approved for clinical use in urological surgery according to the IDEAL framework.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted using the Medline and Scopus databases according to the updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (CRD42024503227). Comparative or noncomparative studies reporting on any urological procedures performed with novel robotic platforms (Hugo RAS; Versius, KangDuo, Senhance, REVO-I, Avatera, Hinotori, Dexter, or Toumai) were selected and included in the analysis.

Key findings and limitations

Seventy-four eligible studies were included, of which 67 (90.5%) were noncomparative surgical series representing developmental or explorative studies according to the IDEAL criteria. Only one randomised controlled trial (comparing KangDuo vs da Vinci robot-assisted partial nephrectomy) was included. The trial showed comparable perioperative outcomes between the two robotic systems. Four studies assessed clinical outcomes for patients undergoing urological procedures using a REVO-I (1 study), Senhance (2 studies), or Hinotori (1 study) system in comparison to the same procedures performed using a da Vinci system. All studies revealed outcomes comparable to those with the da Vinci system. Limitations include the small sample size in all studies, and assessment of first-generation novel platforms versus the fourth-generation multiarm da Vinci system in most of the comparative studies.

Conclusions and clinical implications

A few poor-quality studies have compared the use of novel robotic platforms to da Vinci systems in urological surgery and demonstrated comparable results. Most studies can be classified as developmental or explorative, representing the initial steps of clinical research. Large multicentre series are needed to understand whether these novel robots could offer advantages beyond cost reductions over the da Vinci systems.

Patient summary

We reviewed research on new robotic systems for surgery in urology. Several studies have shown the feasibility and safety of these new robots during the most common procedures. Very few studies have assessed clinical outcomes with the new robots in comparison to the reference standard, which is a fourth-generation da Vinci robot. Large multicentre studies are needed to understand whether the new robots could offer advantages other than cost savings over the da Vinci robot.

How long do we need to reach sufficient expertise with the avatera® robotic system?

PURPOSE

To investigate the learning curve in four basic surgical skills in laparoscopic and robotic surgeries, and evaluate the approximate time needed to reach sufficient expertise in performing these tasks with the avatera® system.

METHODS

Twenty urology residents with no previous experience in dry-lab and robotic surgery were asked to complete four basic laparoscopic tasks (peg transfer, circle cutting, needle guidance, and suturing) laparoscopically and robotically. All participants were asked to complete the tasks first after watching the Uroweb educational material and, second, after undertaking a 2-hour training in robotic and laparoscopic dry-lab. Thereafter, all trainees continued to undertake 2-hour training programs until being able to complete the tasks with the avatera® robot at the desired time. Paired t test and one-way ANOVA test were used to analyze time differences between the groups.

RESULTS

Time needed to complete all tasks either robotically or laparoscopically was significantly less in the second compared to the first attempt for all Groups in each Task. In the robotic dry-lab, time needed to complete the tasks was significantly less than in the laparoscopic dry-lab. A significant effect of previous laparoscopic experience of the participants on the training time needed to achieve most of the goal times was detected.

CONCLUSION

The results of the study highlight the role of previous laparoscopic experience in the training time needed to achieve the performance time goals and demonstrate that the learning curve of basic surgical skills using the avatera® system is steeper than the laparoscopic one.