SynthesisProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2026
Outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with novel robotic platforms vs da Vinci multiport systems: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- da VinciBMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Emerging robotic platforms in urologic surgery: a bibliometric and visualization analysis of global trends and research hotspots.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe introduction of novel robotic platforms has expanded surgical options for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). However, comparative outcomes with da Vinci multiport (MP) system remain unclear. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare perioperative, early oncological, and functional outcomes of RARP performed with novel robotic platforms versus the da Vinci MP system.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase (updated December 22, 2024) following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies compared RARP performed with alternative robotic platforms versus da Vinci MP, reporting perioperative, oncological, or functional outcomes. A network meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. Outcomes were expressed as mean differences for continuous variables and odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous variables, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsThirty-three studies for a total of 5987 patients were included. Compared to da Vinci MP, da Vinci SP had lower odds of lymph node dissection (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26-0.61) and nerve-sparing (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02-0.61) but was associated with shorter catheterization (-1.18 days, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.31) and hospital stay (-0.68 days, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.31). Versius, KangDuo, and SHURUI SP had significantly longer operative times (MD 74.00, 95% CI 42.49-105.51; MD 53.96, 95% CI 18.26-89.67; MD 103.88, 95% CI 69.99-137.78, respectively). Hugo RAS had higher intraoperative malfunction rates (OR 6.53, 95% CI 2.17-19.63). Positive surgical margin rates were lower for da Vinci SP (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.92) but higher with the perineal approach (OR 6.30, 95% CI 1.53-25.94). PSA persistence, biochemical recurrence, continence and erectile function rates were comparable across platforms.
conclusionThis is the first network meta-analysis comparing robotic platforms for RARP. While perioperative differences exist, oncological and functional outcomes appear comparable. Future studies should address learning curve effects, cost-effectiveness, and long-term functional outcomes to optimize robotic platform selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40921741What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.