Head-to-head comparison of DaVinci and Hugo™ RAS robotic platforms for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

Francesco Ditonno; Greta Pettenuzzo; Francesca Montanaro; Lorenzo De Bon; Sonia Costantino; Endri Toska; Sarah Malandra; Francesco Cianflone; Alberto Bianchi; Antonio Benito Porcaro; Maria Angela Cerruto; Alessandro Veccia; Riccardo Bertolo; Alessandro Antonelli

doi:10.1038/s41391-024-00908-x

Head-to-head comparison of DaVinci and Hugo™ RAS robotic platforms for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024 Oct 15. doi: 10.1038/s41391-024-00908-x. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Borgo Trento Hospital, Verona, Italy.
² Residency Program in Health Statistics and Biometrics, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
³ Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Borgo Trento Hospital, Verona, Italy. [email protected].

PMID: 39402370
DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00908-x

Abstract

Background: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies to analyze intra- and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) using either DaVinci (DV-RARP) or Hugo™RAS (H-RARP) platforms.

Methods: The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024562326) and followed PRISMA guidelines. Literature search was conducted in June 2024 using academic databases, focusing on articles from 2021 to 2024. Research question focused on men with PCa (P) undergoing H-RARP (I) versus DV-RARP (C) to evaluate surgical, pathology, and functional outcomes (O), across comparative studies. Continuous variables were summarized using mean difference (MD) and categorical variables using odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test and I² statistics. Publication bias was evaluated with Egger's and Begg's tests. Statistical analysis was performed with Stata®17.0, with significance set at p < 0.05. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR 2.

Results: Eight studies (three prospective, five retrospective) with 1114 patients (454 H-RARP vs. 660 DV-RARP) were included. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. No significant differences were found in overall operative time, console time, blood loss, nerve-sparing, or lymphadenectomy. Docking time was significantly longer for Hugo™RAS (MD:6 min,95% CI 4.2;7.8). Postoperative outcomes, including complications, length of stay, and catheterization time, were similar. Pathological outcomes showed no significant differences in positive surgical margins or staging, but lower node yield was observed with H-RARP (MD:-2,95% CI -3.3;-0.6). Urinary continence recovery was comparable. Risk of bias was moderate to serious.

Conclusion: The meta-analysis suggests H-RARP and DV-RARP perform not statistically different across most of analyzed outcomes, except for docking time and lymph-node yield. The longer docking time associated with the Hugo™RAS suggests demanding setup but does not translate into significantly longer operative time. Although statistically significant, the observed difference in lymph-node yield might be clinically negligible.

Publication types

Review