Comparison of perioperative outcomes and technical features using da Vinci Si and Xi robotic platforms for early stages of endometrial cancer

Surgical Treatment for Endometrial Cancer, Hysterectomy Performed via Minimally Invasive Routes Compared with Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as the standard of care for early-stage endometrial cancer (EC). Prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses have focused on outcomes reported solely from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), overlooking valuable data from non-randomised studies. This inaugural systematic review and network meta-analysis comprehensively compares clinical and oncological outcomes between MIS and open surgery for early-stage EC, incorporating evidence from randomised and non-randomised studies. Methods: This study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020186959). All original research of any experimental design reporting clinical and oncological outcomes of surgical treatment for endometrial cancer was included. Study selection was restricted to English-language peer-reviewed journal articles published 1 January 1995-31 December 2021. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Results: A total of 99 studies were included in the network meta-analysis, comprising 181,716 women and 14 outcomes. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery demonstrated reduced blood loss and length of hospital stay but increased operating time. Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic-assisted surgery was associated with a significant reduction in ileus (OR = 0.40, 95% CrI: 0.17-0.87) and total intra-operative complications (OR = 0.38, 95% CrI: 0.17-0.75) as well as a higher disease-free survival (OR = 2.45, 95% CrI: 1.04-6.34). Conclusions: For treating early endometrial cancer, minimal-access surgery via robotic-assisted or laparoscopic techniques appears safer and more efficacious than open surgery. Robotic-assisted surgery is associated with fewer complications and favourable oncological outcomes.

Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Performed with Different Robotic Platforms: First Comparative Evidence Between Da Vinci and HUGO Robot-assisted Surgery Robots

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.

Comparing surgical outcomes of da Vinci SP and da Vinci Xi for endometrial cancer surgical staging in a propensity score-matched study

The number of studies comparing robotic systems in endometrial cancer staging is limited. This retrospective study analyzed the medical records of 42 consecutive endometrial cancer patients, who underwent robotic staging using the da Vinci SP (SP) system, and 126 propensity score-matched patients who underwent staging using the da Vinci Xi (Xi) system. Median console and total operation times were longer in the SP group than those in the Xi group (125 vs. 77 min, p < 0.001; 225 vs. 154.5 min, p < 0.001, respectively). Notably, the median console time of the first 10 cases using SP was 184 min; it subsequently decreased to 99.5 min in the fourth 10 cases. SP had lesser postoperative hemoglobin (Hb) change (0.6 ± 0.7 g/dL vs. 1.8 ± 0.9 g/dL in Xi, p < 0.001) and lower median pain score at 6 h after surgery (2 vs. 3 in Xi, p = 0.046). Moreover, median postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the SP group (2 days) than that in the Xi group (6 days) (p < 0.001). Although SP was correlated with lower postoperative Hb change, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and lower pain score than those in Xi, it required longer operation times. Further prospective randomized studies are needed to validate the benefits of SP compared to other robotic platforms.

Comparison of short-term surgical outcomes using da Vinci S, Si and Xi Surgical System for robotic gastric cancer surgery

When compared with the second/third generation da Vinci S/Si, the fourth generation Xi surgical system may allow for greater efficiency and result in shorter operation times during robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer (GC). We directly compare surgical outcomes between the conventional S/Si and the newer Xi robotic platform for the treatment of GC. This is a single-center retrospective study of 148 consecutive patients with GC who underwent RG. Of these patients, 20 patients were treated with the S, 30 patients with the Si, and 98 patients with the Xi. The overall operation time was significantly longer in the S group (386.5 min) than in the other groups (Si group: 292 min; Xi group: 297 min) (S vs. Si: P = 0.010; S vs. Xi: P = 0.001). We observed no difference, however, between the newer Xi and Si systems in operation time. Intraoperative blood loss was similar across the three groups. The overall postoperative complication rate in the Xi group (8.2%) was lower than that of the S group (10%) and the Si group (13.3%), but the difference was not significant. The newer Xi system did not provide significant intraoperative or early postoperative advantages over the Si system.