To report the first multicentric comparison between Hugo™ robot-assisted surgery/system (RAS) and Da Vinci® Xi for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).
Methods:
Between October 2022 and March 2024, a total of 258 patients underwent off-clamp RAPN (Hugo RAS = 52 patients, and Da Vinci = 206 patients). Da Vinci and Hugo cases were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching (PSM), adjusting for the Radius Exophytic Nearness Anterior Location score and renorrhaphy technique. Trifecta was defined as the coexistence of negative surgical margin status, no Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications, and ≤ 30% estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reduction at discharge.
Results:
After 1:1 PSM, two comparable populations of 52 patients each were selected. No intraoperative blood transfusion occurred in any group. The Hugo cohort displayed a higher rate of postoperative transfusions (7.7% vs 0%, p = 0.04). Nevertheless, perioperative complications were comparable (p = 0.32). The median length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the Da Vinci group (2 days vs 3 days, p < 0.001), as for median eGFR at discharge (74.5 mL/min/1.73m2vs 87.3 mL/min/1.73m2, p = 0.03). No significant difference in positive surgical margins was shown between the two groups (p = 0.08). Finally, a comparable Trifecta rate was achieved for both platforms (88.5% in the Hugo RAS group and 90.4% in the Da Vinci group, p = 0.75).
Conclusions:
Despite the hierarchical role of Da Vinci in the robotic surgical landscape, RAPN can be safely carried out with the new Hugo RAS System, with satisfactory perioperative surgical outcomes comparable to the Da Vinci Xi System.
LjungbergB, AlbigesL, Abu-GhanemY, et al.European association of urology guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: The 2022 update. Eur Urol, 2022; 82(4):399–410; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.03.006
2.
MarchioniM, RivasJG, AutranA, et al.Biomarkers for renal cell carcinoma recurrence: State of the art. Curr Urol Rep, 2021; 22(6):31; doi: 10.1007/s11934-021-01050-0
3.
NapolitanoL, OrecchiaL, GiulioniC, et al.The role of miRNA in the management of localized and advanced renal masses, a narrative review of the literature. Appl Sci (Switzerland), 2022; 13(1):275; doi: 10.3390/app13010275
4.
BradshawAW, AutorinoR, SimoneG, et al.Robotic partial nephrectomy vs minimally invasive radical nephrectomy for clinical T2a renal mass: A propensity score‐matched comparison from the ROSULA (Robotic Surgery for Large Renal Mass) collaborative group. BJU Int, 2020; 126(1):114–123; doi: 10.1111/bju.15064
5.
SimoneG, De NunzioC, FerrieroM, et al.Trends in the use of partial nephrectomy for cT1 renal tumors: Analysis of a 10-yr European multicenter dataset. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2016; 42(11):1729–1735; doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.03.022
6.
PapaliaR, De Castro AbreuAL, PanebiancoV, et al.Novel kidney segmentation system to describe tumour location for nephron-sparing surgery. World J Urol, 2015; 33(6):865–871; doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1386-2
7.
CrocerossaF, FioriC, CapitanioU, et al.Estimated glomerular filtration rate decline at 1 year after minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: A multimodel comparison of predictors. Eur Urol Open Sci, 2022; 38:52–59; doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.02.005
8.
PapaliaR, SimoneG, FerrieroM, et al.Laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy without renal ischaemia for tumours larger than 4 cm: Perioperative and functional outcomes. World J Urol, 2012; 30(5):671–676; doi: 10.1007/s00345-012-0961-7
9.
PapaliaR, SimoneG, FerrieroM, et al.Laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy with controlled hypotensive anesthesia to avoid hilar clamping: Feasibility, safety and perioperative functional outcomes. J Urol, 2012; 187(4):1190–1194; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.100
10.
BrassettiA, AnceschiU, BoveAM, et al.Purely off-clamp laparoscopic partial nephrectomy stands the test of time: 15 years functional and oncologic outcomes from a single center experience. Curr Oncol, 2023; 30(1):1196–1205; doi: 10.3390/curroncol30010092
11.
ChangKD, Abdel RaheemA, KimKH, et al.Functional and oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: A multicentre comparative matched-pair analyses with a median of 5 years’ follow-up. BJU Int, 2018; 122(4):618–626; doi: 10.1111/bju.14250
12.
AnceschiU, FerrieroMC, TudertiG, et al.Head to head impact of margin, ischemia, complications, score versus a novel trifecta score on oncologic and functional outcomes after robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: Results of a multicenter series. Eur Urol Focus, 2021; 7(6):1391–1399; doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.021
13.
ShirokiR, FukamiN, FukayaK, et al.Robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy: Superiority over laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Int J Urol, 2016; 23(2):122–131; doi: 10.1111/iju.13001
14.
EspertoF, PrataF, Autrán-GómezAM, et al.New technologies for kidney surgery planning 3d, impression, augmented reality 3d, reconstruction: Current realities and expectations. Curr Urol Rep, 2021; 22(7):35; doi: 10.1007/s11934-021-01052-y
15.
RagusaA, PrataF, IannuzziA, et al.The evolution of robotic surgery through the machine design innovation. Uro, 2024; 4(3):124–135; doi: 10.3390/uro4030010
16.
PrataF, RagusaA, TempestaC, et al.State of the art in robotic surgery with hugo RAS system: Feasibility, safety and clinical applications. J Pers Med, 2023; 13(8):1233; doi: 10.3390/jpm13081233
17.
PrataF, RasoG, RagusaA, et al.Robot-assisted renal surgery with the new Hugo Ras system: Trocar placement and docking settings. J Pers Med, 2023; 13(9):1372; doi: 10.3390/jpm13091372
18.
García RojoE, Hevia PalaciosV, Brime MenendezR, et al.Da Vinci and Hugo RAS platforms for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: A preliminary prospective comparative analysis of the outcomes. Minerva Urol Nephrol, 2024; 76(3):303–311; doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.24.05623-4
19.
BraviCA, BalestrazziE, De LoofM, et al.Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed with different robotic platforms: First comparative evidence between Da Vinci and HUGO robot-assisted surgery robots. Eur Urol Focus, 2024; 10(1):107–114; doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.08.001
20.
AntonelliA, VecciaA, MalandraS, et al.; Collaborators. Intraoperative performance of DaVinci versus Hugo RAS during radical prostatectomy: Focus on timing, malfunctioning, complications, and user satisfaction in 100 consecutive cases (the COMPAR-P Trial). Eur Urol Open Sci, 2024; 63:104–112; doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.03.013
21.
Brime MenendezR, García RojoE, Hevia PalaciosV, et al.Da Vinci vs. Hugo RAS for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A prospective comparative single-center study. World J Urol, 2024; 42(1):336; doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-05045-7
22.
PrataF, RagusaA, AnceschiU, et al.Three-arms off-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with the new Hugo robot-assisted surgery system. BJU Int, 2024; 133(1):48–52; doi: 10.1111/bju.16166
23.
BertoloR, SimoneG, GaristoJ, et al.Off-clamp vs on-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy: Perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes from a propensity-score matching between two high-volume centers. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2019; 45(7):1232–1237; doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.12.005
24.
SimoneG, CapitanioU, TudertiG, et al.On-clamp versus off-clamp partial nephrectomy: Propensity score-matched comparison of long-term functional outcomes. Int J Urol, 2019; 26(10):985–991; doi: 10.1111/iju.14079
25.
WardCF, MeatheEA, BenumofJL, et al.A COMPUTER NOMOGRAM FOR BLOOD LOSS REPLACEMENT. Anesthesiology, 1980; 53(3):S126; doi: 10.1097/00000542-198009001-00126
26.
ClavienPA, BarkunJ, de OliveiraML, et al.The clavien-dindo classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg, 2009; 250(2):187–196; doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
27.
TudertiG, MastroianniR, AnceschiU, et al.Assessing the trade-off between the safety and effectiveness of off-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy for renal masses with a high RENAL score: A propensity score–matched comparison of perioperative and functional outcomes in a multicenter analysis. Eur Urol Focus, 2023; 9(6):1037–1043; doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.05.009
28.
PrataF, RagusaA, AnceschiU, et al.Hugo RAS robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for high-nephrometry score complex renal mass: Case report and surgical technique. Videourology, 2023; 37(1); doi: 10.1089/vid.2023.0019
29.
VecciaA, Dell’oglioP, AntonelliA, et al.Robotic partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy in elderly patients with large renal masses. Minerva Urol Nefrol, 2020; 72(1):99–108; doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03583-5
30.
BrassettiA, RagusaA, TedescoF, et al.Robotic surgery in urology: History from PROBOT® to HUGOTM. Sensors (Basel), 2023; 23(16):7104; doi: 10.3390/s23167104
31.
AtifeM, OkondoE, JafferA, et al.Intuitive’s da Vinci vs Medtronic’s Hugo: Real life observations from a robot naïve perspective. J Robot Surg, 2024; 18(1):4; doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01763-z
32.
FicarraV, RossaneseM, GiannariniG, et al.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 Open Sci, 2024; 67:7–25; doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.06.014
33.
BrassettiA, AnceschiU, BertoloR, et al.Surgical quality, cancer control and functional preservation: Introducing a novel trifecta for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Minerva Urol Nefrol, 2020; 72(1):82–90; doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03570-7
