Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Clinical
  • Published:

New robotic platforms for prostate surgery: the future is now

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 26, pages 519–520 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Robotic surgery has revolutionized the field of prostate cancer treatment. The precision, dexterity, and visualization provided by advanced robotic surgical systems have allowed surgeons to perform highly complex procedures with reduced blood loss [1], faster recovery [1], and reduced invasiness [2]. Although a highly trained open surgeon can perform as good as a robotic surgeon [3], today robotic surgery has become an essential tool for urologic surgery [4] and its implementation in prostatic procedures will most likely only increase in the near future. Extensive data demonstrates comparable oncological outcomes between robotic-assisted surgery and the traditional open approach in current practice. Consequently, there is a growing focus on investigating new outcome measures, such as patient recovery, to objectively assess the minimally invasive nature of robotic platforms.

In the pre-millennium era, surgical robots like PUMA 560, PROBOT, and ROBODOC were conceived for various surgical procedures, but none were designed for the laparoscopic environment until the Automated Endoscopic System for Optimal Positioning (AESOP) robotic platform was developed by Computer Motion, Inc. and the Green Telepresence system was developed by Intuitive Surgical, Inc., which became the early version of the current da Vinci system. The introduction of the da Vinci Si provided improved three-dimensional (3D) visualization and greater control of the surgical instruments. The da Vinci X, Xi and SP models further enhanced these capabilities, allowing for greater precision and flexibility in performing complex surgeries. Since then, many other robotic platforms were successfully employed in prostate surgery such as the Medtronic HugoTM RAS system, the CMR Versius® surgical system, the Medicaroid Hinotori®, the Avatera® and the Dexter Robotic SystemTM. The global use of robotic surgery has been increasing at a rate of approximately 15% annually, reaching 1.24 million procedures worldwide in 2020, with the United States accounting for 70.6% of the total [5]. The number of operational robotic platforms is also growing, with over 900 installations occurring each year worldwide [5].

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, Jung JH, Murphy D, Frydenberg M. Laparoscopic and robot-assisted vs open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review. BJU Int. 2018;121:845–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Catto JWF, Khetrapal P, Ricciardi F, Ambler G, Williams NR, Al-Hammouri T, et al. Effect of robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion vs open radical cystectomy on 90-day morbidity and mortality among patients with bladder cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2022;327:2092–103.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Coughlin GD, Yaxley JW, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:1051–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. MacAskill F, Shabbir M, Sahai A, Guy’s Post Pelvic Surgery (PPS) Research Group. Survivorship in prostate cancer following robotic assisted radical prostatectomy-the time to act is now! Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022. Online ahead of print.

  5. Mehta A, Cheng Ng J, Andrew Awuah W, Huang H, Kalmanovich J, Agrawal A, et al. Embracing robotic surgery in low- and middle-income countries: potential benefits, challenges, and scope in the future. Ann Med Surg. 2022;84:104803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hinojosa-Gonzalez DE, Roblesgil-Medrano A, Torres-Martinez M, Alanis-Garza C, Estrada-Mendizabal RJ, Gonzalez-Bonilla EA, et al. Single-port versus multiport robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the da Vinci SP platform. Prostate. 2022;82:405–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Abou Zeinab M, Kaviani A, Ferguson E, Beksac AT, Schwen Z, Gill B, et al. Single-port transvesical versus open simple prostatectomy: a perioperative comparative study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022. Online ahead of print.

  8. Li K, Yu X, Yang X, Huang J, Deng X, Su Z, et al. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of single-port vs multiport robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2022;36:83–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mottaran A, Paciotti M, Bravi CA, Sarchi L, Nocera L, Piro A, et al. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy with the novel HUGOTM RAS System: feasibility, setting, and perioperative outcomes. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2023;75:235–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bravi CA, Paciotti M, Sarchi L, Mottaran A, Nocera L, Farinha R, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with the novel hugo robotic system: initial experience and optimal surgical set-up at a tertiary referral robotic center. Eur Urol. 2022;82:233–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Böhlen D, Gerber R. First ever radical prostatectomy performed with the new dexter robotic systemTM. Eur Urol. 2023;83:479–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rocco B, Turri F, Sangalli M, Assumma S, Piacentini I, Grasso A, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with the versius robotic surgical system: first description of a clinical case. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023;48:82–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Hinata N, Yamaguchi R, Kusuhara Y, Kanayama H, Kohjimoto Y, Hara I, et al. Hinotori surgical robot system, a novel robot-assisted surgical platform: preclinical and clinical evaluation. Int J Urol J Jpn Urol Assoc. 2022;29:1213–20.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pandolfo SD, Del Giudice F, Chung BI, Manfredi C, De Sio M, Damiano R, et al. Robotic assisted simple prostatectomy versus other treatment modalities for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 6500 cases. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022. Online ahead of print.

  15. Creta M, Manfredi C, Arcaniolo D, Spirito L, Kaplan SA, Woo HH, et al. Functional and oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients with history of surgery for lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic enlargement: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023. Online ahead of print.

  16. Fuschi A, Pastore AL, Al Salhi Y, Martoccia A, De Nunzio C, Tema G, et al. The impact of radical prostatectomy on global climate: a prospective multicentre study comparing laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023. Online ahead of print.

  17. Checcucci E, Rosati S, De Cillis S, Vagni M, Giordano N, Piana A, et al. Artificial intelligence for target prostate biopsy outcomes prediction the potential application of fuzzy logic. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022;25:359–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. De Backer P, Van Praet C, Simoens J, Peraire Lores M, Creemers H, Mestdagh K, et al. Improving augmented reality through deep learning: real-time instrument delineation in robotic renal surgery. Eur Urol. 2023;S0302-2838:02633–7.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Porpiglia F, Checcucci E, Amparore D, Manfredi M, Massa F, Piazzolla P, et al. Three-dimensional elastic augmented-reality robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using hyperaccuracy three-dimensional reconstruction technology: a step further in the identification of capsular involvement. Eur Urol. 2019;76:505–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Georges Mjaess, Luca Orecchia.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Hôpital Unviersitaire de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

    Georges Mjaess

  2. Urology Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, Tor Vergata University Hospital, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

    Luca Orecchia & Simone Albisinni

Authors
  1. Georges Mjaess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luca Orecchia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simone Albisinni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GM and LO drafted the manuscript; SA critically revised and supervised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georges Mjaess.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mjaess, G., Orecchia, L. & Albisinni, S. New robotic platforms for prostate surgery: the future is now. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 26, 519–520 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-023-00697-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-023-00697-9

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links