在机器人手术领域，对不同机器人平台的手术和功能结果缺乏比较性证据。为了评估在一家大规模机器人中心进行daVinci和HUGO机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术（RARP）的患者的结果，我们分析了2021年至2023年期间在比利时奥尔夫医院（Aalst）接受RARP ± 扩大盆腔淋巴结清扫的542名患者的数据。所有手术由六名外科医生使用daVinci或HUGO机器人进行；使用某个平台而不是另一个平台没有遵循任何特定的偏好和/或指征。多变量分析调查了机器人系统（daVinci vs HUGO RAS）与手术结果之间的关联，调整了患者和肿瘤相关因素。尿潴留恢复定义为不使用/使用一个安全垫。 共有378名（70％）和164名（30％）患者分别接受了daVinci和HUGO RAS手术系统的RARP。尽管HUGO RAS组中有更高的触诊性疾病率（34％vs 25％），但基线特征在两组之间没有差异（所有p> 0.05）。在调整混杂因素后，我们未发现在手术时间（估计值：16.71；95％置信区间[CI]：-6.35，39.78；p=0.12）、估计失血量（估计值：3.12；95％CI：-67.03，73.27；p=0.9）和术后Clavien-Dindo ≥2并发症（比值比[OR]：1.66；95％CI：0.34，8.15；p=0.5）方面两组之间存在差异的证据。在最终病理学上，分别有55名（15％）和20名（12％）的男性daVinci和HUGO RAS组患者具有阳性手术切缘（PSMs；p=0.5）。在多变量分析中，我们未发现机器人系统与PSMs之间的关联的证据（OR：1.08；95％CI：0.56，2.07；p=0.8）。同样，恢复尿潴留的几率在1个月（OR：0.78；95％CI：0.45，1.38；p=0.4）和3个月（OR：1.17；95％CI：0.49，2.79；p=0.7）后，daVinci和HUGO RAS病例之间没有差异。 在接受daVinci或HUGO RAS手术平台的RARP患者中，我们未发现机器人之间在手术和功能结果上的差异。这可能是由于标准化的手术技术使外科医生能够在机器人系统之间转移他们的技能。在等待更长时间的随访的未来调查中，这些结果对患者、外科医生和卫生保健政策制定者具有重要的影响。 我们比较了接受daVinci和HUGO机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术的患者的手术和功能结果。这两个平台能够实现类似的结果，表明引入HUGO机器人辅助手术是安全的，并且能够在根治性前列腺切除术后获得最佳结果。 © 2023年欧洲泌尿学会。由Elsevier B.V.出版。版权所有。

In the field of robotic surgery, there is a lack of comparative evidence on surgical and functional outcomes of different robotic platforms.To assess the outcomes of patients receiving robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) at a high-volume robotic center with daVinci and HUGO robot-assisted surgery (RAS) surgical systems.We analyzed the data of 542 patients undergoing RARP ± extended pelvic lymph node dissection at OLV hospital (Aalst, Belgium) between 2021 and 2023. All procedures were performed by six surgeons using daVinci or HUGO RAS robots; the use of one platform rather than the other did not follow any specific preference and/or indication.Multivariable analyses investigated the association between robotic system (daVinci vs HUGO RAS) and surgical outcomes after adjustment for patient- and tumor-related factors. Urinary continence recovery was defined as the use of no/one safety pad.A total of 378 (70%) and 164 (30%) patients underwent RARP with daVinci and HUGO RAS surgical systems, respectively. Despite a higher rate of palpable disease in the HUGO RAS group (34% vs 25%), baseline characteristics did not differ between the groups (all p > 0.05). After adjusting for confounders, we did not find evidence of a difference between the groups with respect to operative time (estimate: 16.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -6.35, 39.78; p = 0.12), estimated blood loss (estimate: 3.12; 95% CI: -67.03, 73.27; p = 0.9), and postoperative Clavien-Dindo ≥2 complications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.66; 95% CI: 0.34, 8.15; p = 0.5). On final pathology, 55 (15%) and 20 (12%) men in, respectively, the daVinci and the HUGO RAS group had positive surgical margins (PSMs; p = 0.5). On multivariable analyses, we did not find evidence of an association between a robotic system and PSMs (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.56, 2.07; p = 0.8). Similarly, the odds of recovering continence did not differ between daVinci and HUGO RAS cases after both 1 mo (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.38; p = 0.4) and 3 mo (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.49, 2.79; p = 0.7).Among patients receiving RARP with daVinci or HUGO RAS surgical platforms, we did not find differences in surgical and functional outcomes between the robots. This may be a result of a standardized surgical technique that allowed surgeons to transfer their skills between robotic systems. Awaiting future investigations with longer follow-up, these results have important implications for patients, surgeons, and health care policymakers.We compared surgical and functional outcomes of patients receiving robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with daVinci versus HUGO robot-assisted surgery (RAS) robots. The two platforms were able to achieve similar outcomes, suggesting that the introduction of HUGO RAS is safe and allows for optimal outcomes after radical prostatectomy.Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.