Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39113717›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2024

Robot-assisted Single-port Radical Prostatectomy with the SHURUI SP and da Vinci SP Platforms: Comparison of the Technology, Intraoperative Performance, and Outcomes.

Zhenjie Wu, Zheng Wang, Marcio Covas Moschovas, Riccardo Bertolo, Riccardo Campi, Juan Gómez Rivas, Yong Wei, Dan Xia, Bin Xu, Qingyi Zhu and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. da VinciBMC surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. [Current Applications and Future Prospects of Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery in Urology].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Zhenjie WuDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Zheng WangDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Marcio Covas MoschovasEuropean Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Riccardo BertoloEuropean Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Riccardo CampiEuropean Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Juan Gómez RivasEuropean Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Yong WeiDepartment of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Dan XiaDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Bin XuDepartment of Urology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Qingyi ZhuDepartment of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Jeremy Yuen-Chun TeohEuropean Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Giorgio GandagliaEuropean Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Daniele AmparoreEuropean Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Francesco PorpigliaDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Italy.
Vipul PatelGlobal Robotics Institute, AdventHealth, Celebration, FL, USA.
Linhui WangDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective: The purpose-built SHURUI single-port (SP) robotic platform has recently been introduced for several procedures in urology, general surgery, and gynecology. However, comparative evidence on its performance in relation to earlier models such as the da Vinci SP is lacking. Our aim was to compare the step-by-step techniques and 1-yr outcomes for radical prostatectomy (RP) between the SHURUI SP and da Vinci SP robots. Methods: Data were retrieved from two prospectively maintained databases. The SHURUI SP robot was used to perform RP in 34 patients in China (September 2021 to August 2022); the da Vinci SP robot was used to perform 100 consecutive RP cases in the USA (June 2019 to October 2020). A comparative analysis was conducted before and after 1:1 propensity score matching for age, body mass index, American Urological Association symptom score, prostate size, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, biopsy grade group, and D'Amico risk group. Intraoperative performance and short-term oncological and continence outcomes were compared between the groups. Biochemical recurrence was defined as two consecutive postoperative PSA levels >0.2 ng/ml. Continence was defined as full recovery of urinary control without the use of pads. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate continence recovery curves, and a log-rank test for trend was used to detect ordered differences in continence recovery between the SHURUI SP and da Vinci SP groups after surgery. Key findings and limitations: For the matched SHURUI and da Vinci groups, median age (69 vs 69 yr), median PSA (8.4 vs 7.1 ng/ml), and the proportion of patients with low-risk (33.3% vs 29.6%), intermediate-risk (66.7% vs 63%), and high-risk disease (0% vs 7.4%) were comparable (all Conclusions: Despite differences in driving mechanisms between the two SP robotic systems, RP can be performed safely and effectively with the SHURUI RP robot during the initial learning phase, with similar short-term oncological and continence outcomes to those with the da Vinci SP robot. Patient summary: We compared two surgical robots (SHURUI SP and da Vinci SP) used to perform robotic surgery to remove the prostate through a single keyhole incision instead of multiple incisions. Our results show comparable technology and similar surgical and short-term cancer control outcomes for the two robots.

Indexed as

Radical prostatectomyRobot-assisted surgerySingle port

Identifiers

PMID39113717
PMCPMC11304864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.