Performance and safety of Kangduo surgical robot versus da Vinci robotic system for urologic surgeries.

Yanan Liu, Fengjiao Wang, Xuexin Li
Author Information
  1. Yanan Liu: Department of Urology Surgery, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, 150081, Heilongjiang, China.
  2. Fengjiao Wang: Department of Thoracic Surgery, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Haping Road, Harbin, 150081, Heilongjiang, China.
  3. Xuexin Li: Department of Urology Surgery, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, 150081, Heilongjiang, China. 15846348504@163.com.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Kangduo (KD) surgical robot is a novel robotic system in China, and some animal experiments and single-arm clinical trials have indicated its effectiveness, feasibility, and safety for urologic surgeries. This study intended to compare the performance and safety of the KD surgical robot with the da Vinci (DV) robotic system in patients who received urologic surgeries.
METHODS: A total of 201 patients who received urologic surgeries were divided into the KD group (N���=���60) and the DV group (N���=���141) according to the actual surgical methods.
RESULTS: The median (range) operation time [180.0 (30.0-540.0) minutes vs. 130.0 (70.0-360.0) minutes] (P���<���0.001) and indwelling time of abdominal drainage tube [5.0 (2.0-14.0) days vs. 3.0 (2.0-18.0) days] (P���<���0.001) were longer, but the intraoperative blood loss [50.0 (10.0-200.0) mL vs. 50.0 (10.0-400.0) mL] (P���<���0.001) was less in the KD group than the DV group. The median values of white blood cells at the 1st (P���=���0.032) and 3rd (P���=���0.022) day after surgery were decreased in the KD group compared to the DV group. The incidence of infection (11.7% vs. 29.1%) (P���=���0.008) and fever (15.0% vs. 30.5%) (P���=���0.023) was lower in the KD group compared to the DV group. Postoperative and follow-up parameters, including time of urinary incontinence improvement, administration of hemostatic, pain numeric rating scale score, Barthel's index score, and patient satisfaction, were not different between the two groups (all P���>���0.05).
CONCLUSION: The KD surgical robot unveils satisfactory surgical performance compared to the DV robotic system in patients receiving urologic surgeries.

Keywords

References

  1. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2020 Jun;17(6):579-590 [PMID: 32342705]
  2. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2024 Apr;76(2):241-246 [PMID: 38742557]
  3. Surg Clin North Am. 2020 Apr;100(2):461-468 [PMID: 32169190]
  4. J Endourol. 2023 May;37(5):568-574 [PMID: 36924278]
  5. Investig Clin Urol. 2021 Jan;62(1):14-22 [PMID: 33381927]
  6. J Endourol. 2024 Jul;38(7):661-667 [PMID: 38623792]
  7. Urol Clin North Am. 2021 Feb;48(1):71-80 [PMID: 33218595]
  8. Int J Surg. 2024 Mar 01;110(3):1511-1518 [PMID: 38085814]
  9. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023 Jan 13;49:6-9 [PMID: 36691584]
  10. BJU Int. 2021 Aug;128(2):162-165 [PMID: 33725392]
  11. Eur Urol. 2010 May;57(5):735-46 [PMID: 20036784]
  12. Int J Surg. 2022 Mar;99:106264 [PMID: 35183735]
  13. J Robot Surg. 2024 Mar 30;18(1):145 [PMID: 38554226]
  14. Sensors (Basel). 2023 Aug 11;23(16): [PMID: 37631641]
  15. World J Urol. 2018 Apr;36(4):537-541 [PMID: 29427003]
  16. Eur Urol. 2010 Mar;57(3):453-8 [PMID: 19931979]
  17. Surg Endosc. 2012 Mar;26(3):598-606 [PMID: 21993935]
  18. Eur Urol Focus. 2023 Jan;9(1):133-140 [PMID: 36446724]
  19. Balkan Med J. 2021 Nov;38(6):324-330 [PMID: 34860159]
  20. Electrophoresis. 2020 Sep;41(16-17):1450-1468 [PMID: 32356920]
  21. Folia Morphol (Warsz). 2018;77(2):171-178 [PMID: 29064542]
  22. J Robot Surg. 2023 Dec;17(6):2617-2631 [PMID: 37721644]
  23. J Urol. 2022 Jul;208(1):8-9 [PMID: 35536680]
  24. Surg Clin North Am. 2020 Apr;100(2):361-378 [PMID: 32169184]
  25. J Urol. 2022 Jul;208(1):119-127 [PMID: 35442762]
  26. Surg Endosc. 2024 Apr;38(4):1867-1876 [PMID: 38307959]
  27. J Endourol. 2022 Dec;36(12):1538-1544 [PMID: 35864812]
  28. Stroke. 2011 Apr;42(4):1146-51 [PMID: 21372310]
  29. J Robot Surg. 2024 Jan 13;18(1):26 [PMID: 38217779]
  30. Chin Med J (Engl). 2023 Dec 20;136(24):2960-2966 [PMID: 38013503]
  31. Transl Androl Urol. 2020 Apr;9(2):870-878 [PMID: 32420202]
  32. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2021 Jan 13;48:e20202798 [PMID: 33470371]

Grants

  1. JJQN2023-17/HaiYan foundation
  2. JJQN2023-17/HaiYan foundation
  3. JJQN2023-17/HaiYan foundation

MeSH Term

Humans
Robotic Surgical Procedures
Middle Aged
Female
Male
Urologic Surgical Procedures
Aged
Adult
Operative Time
Treatment Outcome
Postoperative Complications
Retrospective Studies

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.00groupKDsurgicalsurgeriesDVrobotroboticsystemurologicvsP���=���0KangduosafetyVincipatientstimeP���<���0001comparedperformancedareceivedmedian302blood10scorePerformanceOBJECTIVE:novelChinaanimalexperimentssingle-armclinicaltrialsindicatedeffectivenessfeasibilitystudyintendedcompareMETHODS:total201dividedN���=���60N���=���141accordingactualmethodsRESULTS:rangeoperation[1800-540minutes130700-360minutes]indwellingabdominaldrainagetube[50-14days30-18days]longerintraoperativeloss[500-200mL500-400mL]lessvalueswhitecells1st0323rd022daysurgerydecreasedincidenceinfection117%291%008fever150%5%023lowerPostoperativefollow-upparametersincludingurinaryincontinenceimprovementadministrationhemostaticpainnumericratingscaleBarthel'sindexpatientsatisfactiondifferenttwogroupsP���>���005CONCLUSION:unveilssatisfactoryreceivingversusComplicationsDaUrologic

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.