Ficarra V, Rossanese M, Giannarini G, Longo N, Viganò S, Russo D, Sorce G, Simonato A, Bartoletti R, Crestani A, Di Trapani E. Evaluation of Clinical Research on Novel Multiport Robotic Platforms for Urological Surgery According to the IDEAL Framework: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
EUR UROL SUPPL 2024;
67:7-25. [PMID:
39100226 PMCID:
PMC11293526 DOI:
10.1016/j.euros.2024.06.014]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/24/2024] [Indexed: 08/06/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse