Robotic abdominopelvic surgery: a systematic review of cross-platform outcomes.

As the global surgical robotic ecosystem diversifies, multi-platform surgery is becoming increasingly common. The natural question is whether these robots differ in performance and cost. We address this question and report the first systematic review comparing platforms. A systematic search identified clinical studies comparing at least two platforms. Of 287 studies, 31 were included, with 5 RCTs and 26 cohort studies, including 3624 patients. All studies compared da Vinci with Hintori, Hugo, KangDuo, Micro-Hand, Revo-I, Senhance, and Versius robots. Comparisons were across specialties: urology (18 studies; upper and lower tract), general surgery (11 studies; inguinal and ventral hernia, cholecystectomy, colorectal, pancreatic, oesophagectomy, distal gastrectomy), gynaecology (3 studies; hysterectomy, sacrocolpopexy). There were no differences in conversion rate, estimated blood loss, complication rate, pathological parameters, oncological outcomes (6 months), and functional outcomes (12 months). Results were mixed on operative time and its components. Length of stay was largely similar. Surgeon task load was similar (2 studies). Operative cost was 45-60% lower on the newer platforms (3 studies). Operative, clinical, oncological, and functional outcomes were similar for da Vinci and the newer robots across a range of abdominopelvic procedures, with a signal of lower cost on newer types. Studies were heterogeneous. Data on non-technical skills, other human factors, and comparative learning curves was scant. The majority of evidence was low quality and retrospective. However, accumulating evidence on safety, efficacy, and non-inferiority of the newer platforms has implications for robotic training programmes and procurement.