Comparison of Da Vinci XI and Da Vinci SI Surgical Systems in Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Introduction. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is considered to be the “gold standard” for the radical treatment of prostate cancer, achieving excellent oncological outcomes with a low incidence of complications.

Aim. To analyze and compare the efficiency of Da Vinci Xi and Da Vinci Si surgical systems applied in performing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Materials and methods. 165 patients were divided into two groups: Xi-group (n = 77) and Si-group (n = 88). The perioperative characteristics and oncological outcomes were analyzed and compared.

Results. The demographic, clinical, and oncological characteristics of the two patient groups appeared similar and comparable. Interventions involving the preservation of the neurovascular bundle, the pelvic fascia, and the puboprostatic ligament were performed using Xi system significantly more often. The surgery duration was significantly shorter in the Xi-group. The postoperative recovery time and the incidence of postoperative complications appeared to be identical across both groups. No differences were revealed in the rates of positive surgical margins or biochemical recurrence.

Discussion. Reasons behind the reduced operative time were considered as follows: first, the docking of the Xi system is more user-friendly, resulting in decreased docking time; second, the operational efficiency of the Xi system had been enhanced, thereby leading to reduced workflow times; third, a number of collisions between robotic arms was significantly lower during the procedure, which accelerates the surgical process.

Conclusion. A robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed by an experienced professional, using the Da Vinci Xi or Da Vinci Si surgical systems, appears to be safe and feasible without an increased risk of serious complications. However, the Xi system ensures better perioperative outcomes with comparable oncological results.

1. Siegel R.L., Miller K.D., Fuchs H.E., Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(1):7–33. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21708

2. Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R.L., Laversanne M., Soerjomataram I., Jemal A., et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660

3. Abbou C.C., Hoznek A., Salomon L., Olsson L.E., Lobontiu A., Saint F., et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol. 2001;165(6 Pt 1):1964–6. DOI: 10.1097/00005392-200106303-30827

4. Binder J., Jones J., Bentas W., Wolfram M., Bräutigam R., Probst M., et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopy in urology. Radical prostatectomy and reconstructive retroperitoneal interventions. Urologe A. 2002;41(2):144–9. DOI: 10.1007/s00120-002-0178-2

5. Bianchi L., Gandaglia G., Fossati N., Larcher A., Pultrone C., Turri F., et al. Oncologic outcomes in prostate cancer patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series with more than 10 years follow up. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2019;71(1):38–46. DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03285-X

6. Hamdy F.C., Donovan J.L., Lane J.A., Mason M., Metcalfe C., Hol­ding P., et al. 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1415–24. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606220

7. Esperto F., Cacciatore L., Tedesco F., Testa A., Callè P., Ragusa A., et al. Impact of robotic technologies on prostate cancer patients’ choice for radical treatment. J Pers Med. 2023;13(5):794. DOI: 10.3390/jpm13050794

8. Clavien P.A., Barkun J., de Oliveira M.L., Vauthey J.N., Dindo D., Schulick R.D., et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187–96. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2

9. van der Schans E.M., Hiep M.A.J., Consten E.C.J., Broeders I.A.M.J. From Da Vinci Si to Da Vinci Xi: realistic times in draping and docking the robot. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(6):835–9. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-020-01057-8

10. Abdel Raheem A., Sheikh A., Kim D.K., Alatawi A., Alabdulaali I., Han W.K., et al. Da Vinci Xi and Si platforms have equivalent perioperative outcomes during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: preliminary experience. J Robot Surg. 2017;11(1):53–61. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-016-0612-x

11. Feng Z., Feng M.P., Feng D.P., Solórzano C.C. Robotic-assisted adrenalectomy using Da Vinci Xi vs. Si: are there differences? J Robot Surg. 2020;14(2):349–55. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-019-00995-2

12. Lei K.Y., Xie W.J., Fu S.Q., Ma M., Sun T. A comparison of the Da Vinci Xi vs. Da Vinci Si surgical systems for radical prostatectomy. BMC Surg. 2021;21(1):409. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-021-01406-w

13. Wieder J.A., Soloway M.S. Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 1998;160(2):299–315.

14. Chen H., Lian B., Dong Z., Wang Y., Qu M., Zhu F., et al. Experience of one single surgeon with the first 500 robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy cases in mainland China. Asian J Urol. 2020;7(2):170–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2019.12.004

15. İnkaya A., Tahra A., Sobay R., Kumcu A., Küçük E.V., Boylu U. Comparison of surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer. Turk J Urol. 2019;45(6):410–7. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2019.48457

16. Qi F., Wang S., Xu H., Gao Y., Cheng G., Hua L. A comparison of perioperative outcome between robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single institution. Int Braz J Urol. 2019;45(4):695–702. DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0367