Advancements in robotic surgery: innovations, challenges and future prospects

Chatterjee, Swastika; Das, Soumyajit; Ganguly, Karabi; Mandal, Dibyendu

doi:10.1007/s11701-023-01801-w

Cited by 16 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 97 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As advertisement increased and related insurance policies became favorable, patients started to take robotic surgeries into consideration [ 1 ]. In the future, developments in artificial intelligence and 5G technology are expected to further facilitate the innovation of robotic surgeries and speed up the learning curve for surgeons [ 2 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy by the Hugo Robotic-Assisted Surgery (RAS) System and the da Vinci System: A Comparison between the Two Platforms

Ou,

Marian,

et al. 2024

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: In a previous study, we proved that an experienced urologist is more likely to adapt to the Hugo RAS system. Based on this, we further examine various parameters in this study. Parameters included in this study consisted of console time, functional outcomes, and oncological outcomes. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed by a single surgeon using the da Vinci (DV) system (n = 30) or the Hugo RAS system (n = 30) between March 2023 and August 2023 were included in the analysis. The intraoperative operative time was categorized into vesicourethral anastomosis time and overall console time. Functional and oncological outcomes were documented at the 1st and 3rd postoperative months. Parametric and non-parametric methods were adopted after checking skewness and kurtosis, and an α value of 5% was used to determine the significance. Results: The vesicourethral anastomosis time was significantly lengthened (Hedge’s g: 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.34–1.39; J factor = 0.987). However, the overall console time was not affected. The functional (postoperative 3rd month: p = 0.130) and oncological outcomes (postoperative 3rd month: p = 0.103) were not significantly different. We also found that the adverse effect on surgical specimens and positive surgical margins was not affected (p = 0.552). Conclusion: During the process of adaptation, although intricate motions (such as the vesicourethral anastomosis time) would be lengthened, the overall console time would not change remarkably. In this process, the functional and oncological outcomes would not be compromised. This encourages urologists to adopt the Hugo RAS system in RARP if they have previous experiences of using the DV system, since their trifecta advantage would not be compromised.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%