Preprints.org logo
Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Prospective Comparison of Two Robotic Platforms for the Performance of Radical Prostatectomy: Versius vs. DaVinci

Submitted:

29 October 2026

Posted:

30 October 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Background/Objectives: To compare the perioperative, oncological and functional outcomes of the Versius® and DaVinci® systems as used for performing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with localized prostate cancer. Methods: Prospective observational comparative study on 278 patients subjected to RARP between March 2023-September 2025. 169 procedures were performed with the Versius® system and 109 with the DaVinci® system. An analysis was performed of a series of demographic, perioperative, pathological and functional variables. Quantitative variables were compared using either Student’s t or the Mann-Whitney Test, while categorical variables were analyzed with the chi-squared test or Fisher’s Exact Test. Results: Both groups exhibited comparable baseline characteristics. No statistically significant differences were observed with respect to the amount of pelvic lymph nodes dissected, intraoperative or postoperative complications, transfusion requirements, length of hospital stay or postoperative PSA levels. DaVinci® was shown to be associated with higher rates of neurovascular bundle preservation (48.6% vs. 17.4%; p< 0.001) and the resection of a higher number of positive lymph nodes. Patients operated with the DaVinci® system were more likely to have pN1 disease (20% vs. 4.9%; p=0.014). No statistically significant differences were observed with respect to positive surgical margins, pT stage or the ISUP grade of the specimen. Urinary incontinence was more prevalent in the Versius® group at 3 and 6 months’ follow-up (p=0.003 y p=0.034, respectively), without significant differences at 12 months. Conclusions: Both Versius® and DaVinci® were shown to be safe and effective platforms for the performance of RARP, with comparable short-term perioperative and oncological outcomes.
Keywords: 
prostate cancer
;  
robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
;  
versius
;  
DaVinci
;  
robotic surgery
;  
urinary continence
Subject: 
Medicine and Pharmacology  -   Urology and Nephrology

1. Introduction

Prostate cancer is the second most diagnosed cancer worldwide among men, the first in incidence in Europe and the third cause of cancer-specific death in men [1]. Radical prostatectomy (RP) remains the gold standard for treating patients with localized disease [2,3]. It was not until the 1990’s that the first laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) was carried out, paving the way for a decrease in the occurrence of postoperative complications and a more successful recovery of patients, albeit at the expense of a steep learning curve [2,3].
Nowadays, however, thanks to the expansion of robotic surgery, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has become the standard of care for the surgical treatment of PC in specialized centers [4,5,6,7].
The first-ever RARP was completed in the year 2000 by Abbou et al. This novel technique, which was subsequently popularized by Menon et al., offers such advantages as three-dimensional visualization, the use of articulated instruments, and improved surgeon ergonomics. Some further advantages associated with RARP include a reduction in intraoperative blood loss, as well as more effective and faster patient recovery, which typically results in a shorter hospital stay [7,8,9].
In the last two decades, the field of RARP was dominated by the DaVinci® system (Intuitive Surgical®). Nevertheless, the last few years have seen the development of new robotic platforms, the most noteworthy of which are the Versius® (CMR Surgical®) and the HugoTMRAS (Medtronic®) modular robots [9,10,11,12].
Versius® is a modular robotic system that comprises an open console and up to four robotic arms with articulated instruments. The open console, with its three-dimensional screen, allows the lead surgeon to perform the operation in a standing or seated position, according to their personal preference, and facilitates direct communication with the surgical team. Each robotic arm is assembled onto a bedside unit capable of holding 5mm articulated instruments such as needle-holders, scissors or graspers. Each is capable of up to 11 ranges of movement and 360º of wrist rotation [10,11,13,14].
The robotic arms can be positioned freely around the patient and adjusted to the latter’s anatomical characteristics, which makes the Versius® system highly versatile. It is however essential to place the arms in the correct position to prevent clashes between the robotic instruments and excessively steep intraabdominal angles [10,11,13,14].
The Versius® system also incorporates telemetry data (console start/stop times, movement patterns, locking times, robotic arm release times, alarms and the number and type of instruments used), which provide information on surgical performance and may allow for improvements to the surgical technique. Moreover, the surgeon can record the procedure for subsequent review [13,15].
The data available on the advantages of the Versius® system over other well-established systems such as DaVinci® are inconclusive, which presents a major dilemma for urologists. The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical, oncological and functional outcomes of the Versius® vs. the DaVinci® system in patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC) undergoing RARP at the Ramón y Cajal hospital, where both technologies have been used interchangeably by a group of RARP-trained surgeons since 2023.

2. Materials and Methods

Study Design

This is a non-randomized, prospective observational comparative study on 278 patients subjected to RARP in our hospital between March 2023 and September 2025. The main goal was to evaluate and compare the surgical, oncological and functional outcomes of two different robotic platforms: the DaVinci® system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) and the Versius® system (CMR Surgical, Cambridge, United Kingdom).
This study was carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration on the Ethical Principles for Medical Research involving Human Subjects [16].

Patient Recruitment and Variables Analyzed

The study analyzed a consecutive series of 278 cases subjected to RARP in the Ramón y Cajal Hospital (Madrid, Spain) between March 2023 and September 2025. After conducting a biopsy that confirmed a histologic diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma, patients were informed about the therapeutic options available to them by a series of urologists specializing in prostate cancer. A total of 169 cases were operated using the Versius® system (60.79%) and 109 using the DaVinci® system (39,21%).
Three patients where a robotic procedure was started but had to be subsequently abandoned were excluded from the statistical analysis; all three cases were Versius®-assisted procedures. The reason for converting the procedure to a laparoscopy or open surgery was robot failure in two cases and the patient’s intolerance of the trendelemburg position and of pneumoperitoneum in the third case.
The patients’ demographic and clinical variables (age, height, weight and body mass index (BMI) were recorded at the beginning of the study. Other analyzed variables included: prostate volume as measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRi); preoperative prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels (normal level: 0-4.5 ng/mL); PI-RADS score of the suspicious lesion detected on MRi; preoperative ISUP grade; type of robotic system used; degree of neurovascular bundle preservation; performance or otherwise of an extended pelvic lymph node dissection; number and type of intra- and postoperative complications during the first two months postoperative according to the Clavien-Dindo classification; pre- and postoperative hemoglobin difference; need of a blood transfusion; drainage time; length of hospital stay; ISUP grade of the specimen; tumor grade; N-stage; number of lymph nodes obtained during the dissection; degree of positivity of the dissection; positive surgical margins; perineural invasion; tumor volume (%); prostate volume; postoperative PSA levels, length of vesical catheterization; visits to the emergency room; rate of readmissions; and incontinence at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperative (defined as the use of one or more incontinence pads a day).

Surgical Aspects

All the procedures were carried out by the team of surgeons in our department, made up of four surgeons with vast experience in laparoscopic and/or robotic surgery. The choice of robotic system depended purely on operating room availability, without application of any randomization criteria or taking into consideration the surgeons’ preference.
Four robotic arms were used with both the DaVinci® and the Versius® systems, with up to two supplementary ports being subsequently added by an assistant at the surgeon’s discretion.
Every operation consisted of a transperitoneal or extraperitoneal RP carried out according to the steps laid down in guidelines such as those of the European Association of Urologists, i.e., Retzius space dissection after deroofing of the bladder (only for the transperitoneal approach); bladder neck dissection; vas deferens and seminal vesicle excision; Denonvilliers fascia dissection; dissection of the lateral and anterior aspects of the prostate; prostatectomy; vesicourethral anastomosis with a continuous V-loc suture on a permanent 22 Ch vesical catheter; and aspiration drain placement.
In cases where the risk of lymph node involvement according to the Briganti 2018 nomogram was higher than 7% [17], an extended pelvic lymph node dissection was performed, including dissection of lymph nodes between the external iliac vessels laterally up to the lateral aspect of the bladder medially, and from the iliac bifurcation cranially to Cloquet’s node or the circumflex vein caudally. The dissection continued into the deeper layers, reaching the obturator nerve.
Preservation or otherwise of the neurovascular bundles was decided on a case-by-case basis depending on the tumor’s histological characteristics and the patients’ anatomical characteristics, in accordance with the recommendations of the European Association of Urology Guidelines [18].

Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, v 29.0. Quantitative variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD); while qualitative variables are expressed as frequencies and percentages. Between-group comparisons were made using Student’s t test or the Mann–Whitney test for quantitative variables and the chi-squared test or Fisher’s Exact Test for categorical variables. Statistical significance was set at a p value < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Baseline Characteristics

A total of 278 cases of LPC subjected to RARP were included in the study, 109 (39,21%) were operated with the DaVinci® system and 169 (60.79%) with the Versius® system. Table 1 includes the patients’ baseline characteristics and the data obtained from the patients’ MRi evaluation and diagnostic biopsy. All these data were comparable.

3.2. Intra and Post-Operative Data

Table 2 contains the patients’ intra- and post-operative data.
No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups with respect to the percentage of lymph node dissections performed (35.5% with Versius® vs. 43.1% with DaVinci®; p=0.203). Nonetheless, a strikingly higher proportion of neurovascular bundle preservation was observed among patients operated using the DaVinci® system (17.4% for Versius® vs. 48.6% for DaVinci®, p<0.001).
Use of the DaVinci® system (109 procedures) resulted in only one intraoperative complication, an iatrogenic bladder perforation that was resolved with in situ by placement of a resorbable suture. As far as Versius® was concerned, the only complication was related to the need to temporarily interrupt an operation due to the patient’s tolerance of pneumoperitoneum.
The two robot-assisted systems were also comparable with regards to postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo >2). The only death occurred following a DaVinci®-assisted RARP, as a result of abdominal sepsis caused by a bowel perforation.
Similarly, no statistically significant differences were found with respect to the need of postoperative blood transfusion, length of drainage or length of hospital stay.

3.3. Pathological Analysis

Table 3 presents the subjects’ pathological results following RARP. No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups with respect to ISUP grade or pT stage.
A higher total number of lymph nodes was resected during the dissection procedure (mean value 10.97 vs. 14.67, p value 0.001) in patients in the DaVinci® group. Node positivity was also higher in these patients (1.40% vs. 0.33% in the Versius® group; p value 0.02). A significantly higher proportion of patients with pN1 disease was observed in this group (4.9% vs. 20%, p value 0.014). Findings with respect to margin positivity, perineural invasion, tumor cell percentage in the specimen, and prostate volume were comparable.

3.4. Postoperative Follow-Up Data

A summary of postoperative follow-up data is provided in Table 4. Median PSA levels at two months from the procedure were similar, as was the number of RARP-related visits to the emergency room and the rate of readmissions in both groups. The rate of urinary incontinence was significantly higher in the Versius® group at 3 and 6 months’ follow-up (p = 0.003 and p = 0.034, respectively). Although incontinence at 12 months was more persistent in patients in the Versius® group, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.063).

4. Discussion

RP techniques have evolved significantly in the last few decades. The first-ever LRP was conducted in 1992 in the United States. Subsequently, the procedure was exported to Europe in the aftermath of Guillonneau et. al.’s 1999 article, which reported excellent oncological and functional results using a minimally invasive approach [19]. With the introduction of the DaVinci® robot in 2000, robotic surgery came to be increasingly utilized in all kinds of urologic procedures, including RP. Indeed, RARP has become the standard treatment for LPC in high-volume centers [10,20].
Unlike the DaVinci®, system, the Hugo RAS® and Versius® modular robots are made up of four independent arms, which must be positioned at the right angle and the right distance from the surgical field in order to prevent instrument clashes during the procedure [21]. Versius® incorporates an ergonomic open console that allows surgeons to perform the operation in a seated or standing position while they communicate with the other members of the surgical team in real time [10,11,13].
Each one of these new systems is provided with specific features that may or may not make it superior to the rest. For that reason, the expansion of new robotic platforms has prompted the need to perform comparative evaluations of their oncological and functional performance. Our hospital has been equipped with both the Versius® and the DaVinci® systems since 2023.
The main purpose of this study was to carry out a comparative analysis of the oncological and functional outcomes observed in patients subjected to a RARP using both robotic platforms. All the procedures were performed by the same team of urologists in accordance with previously established protocols. Patients were not randomized; the choice of one robot over the other was based exclusively on operating room availability in the urology department.
No statistically significant differences were found in the baseline characteristics of our patients, including age, BMI, preoperative PSA levels, prostate size or PI-RADS score of the lesions observed on MRi. Similarly, the prostate biopsies providing confirmation of a diagnosis of prostate cancer were found to have a similar ISUP grade in both groups.
As regards the procedure itself, preservation of neurovascular bundles was found to be significantly higher with the DaVinci® system. The number of lymph node dissections conducted with both robotic systems was similar, although the number of lymph nodes obtained during the procedure was higher with the DaVinci® system. These results could be attributable to the fact that urologists in our hospital had already accumulated some experience of the use of the DaVinci® system. This could explain the higher degree of neurovascular bundle preservation and the superior lymph node dissection achieved.
In their own comparison of the effectiveness of the DaVinci® and the Versius® systems for the performance of RARP, Dibitetto et al. similarly reported superior results for DaVinci®. Although the authors do not specify the number of lymph nodes resected, they did find significant differences in the number of completed lymph node dissections and in the preservation of neurovascular bundles. In their case, the lead surgeon had started out in the field of robotic surgery with the Versius® system [6].
Only one intraoperative complication occurred in each group. Moreover, three cases that had to be converted to laparoscopic or open surgery were excluded from the analysis. On two of these occasions the problem was related to a failure of the Versius® system, whereas the third conversion was due to the patient`s intolerance of the Trendelenburg position and of pneumoperitoneum. In a description of their initial experience with Versius®-assisted RARP, Polom et al., reported only one conversion to open surgery (0.58%), motivated by an inflammation caused by administration of BCG immunotherapy prior to the operation [22].
The low conversion rates associated with robot-assisted surgery have been documented in the literature. In a systematic review, Reitano et al. included numerous series not only of robot-assisted radical prostatectomies, but also of other urologic procedures such as adrenalectomy, nephrectomy or robot-assisted nephroureterectomy with negligible conversion rates to laparoscopic or open surgery [23].
In our experience, the rate of postoperative complications among patients operated with both systems are equivalent (4% Versius® vs. 8% DaVinci®, p=0.15; for Clavien Dindo >2 complications). Data are also comparable with respect to length of drainage and hospitalization, blood transfusion requirements, number of visits to the emergency room or the rate of readmissions.
According to our protocols, removal of the catheter is indicated at around two weeks from the operation, regardless of the type of robot used. Surprisingly, other authors such as Polom et al. and Abdelhakim et al. advocate for earlier catheter removal (a median of 7.9 days and of 7 days, respectively) [5,22].
As far as oncological outcomes are concerned, no statistically significant differences were observed with respect to pT staging, surgical margin positivity or perineural invasion. In their series of 60 RARPs with Versius®, Meneghetti et al. reported a surgical margin positivity in 35% of their cases (similar to our 40.7%). In their opinion, and in line with the literature, this is due to a high proportion of extraprostatic disease in their cohort [24,25]. In our series, the majority of positive margins were actually 1-mm close margins with no evidence of tumor activity.
Although no statistically significant differences were observed in the percentage of lymph node dissections performed, a higher percentage of patients with pN1 disease was found in the DaVinci® group. These findings are in line with the data reported by Dibitetto et al. [6]. A review of the literature revealed other case series of Versius®-assisted RARP with heterogeneous pN1 disease rates: 0% in De María et al. and 14.4% in Abdelhakim et al. vs. 4.9% in our series [11,26].
As far as functional status is concerned, significant differences were observed in terms of urinary continence, with patients in the Versius® group demonstrating progressive functional improvement. The Versius®-assisted RARP results reported by De María et al., Polom el al. and Abdelhakim et al. are consistent with our own, reflecting a progressive recovery of urinary continence over time [11,22,26].
As mentioned above, Versius® is currently by no means the only competitor to DaVinci®. Other, increasingly popular modular robotic platforms such as HugoRAS can be used to perform RARP. The literature presents studies comparing the effectiveness of RARP using the HugoRAS vs. the DaVinci® system, such as those published by Brime Menendez et al., Gandi et al. or Balestrazzi et al. Their findings are in line with ours, with no significant differences observed in the oncological performance of these robotic platforms [9,27,28].
The most significant limitation of this study is its short follow-up time (12 months). Indeed, correct evaluation of oncological and functional outcomes following RARP would require a more protracted follow-up period. Another important limitation is related to the study’s prospective non-randomized design, which is aggravated by the fact that the post-surgical collection of data could result in a selection bias, and the surgical results could be influenced by the experience of each individual surgeon.
On the other hand, this study also has its strengths. Our hospital being the first one in Spain to acquire both the Versius® and the DaVinci® robots, we were able to conduct an analysis which, to the best of our knowledge, is one of the first ones to ever compare both systems. The study also includes the largest Versius® cohort recruited so far. Our goal was to lay the foundations for future research and encourage other groups to publish their results on the subject. For our part, we shall remain committed to closely monitoring our patients and reevaluating our results over a longer follow-up period.

5. Conclusions

In sum, this study makes a significant contribution to the state of the art by comparing the results of the Versius® and the DaVinci® systems in patients undergoing RARP. The peri-and (short-term) postoperative results obtained demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of both systems, which indicates that Versius® is a valid alternative for patients requiring RARP. While DaVinci® is capable of resecting a larger number of lymph nodes and achieving higher positivity rates, no differences were observed between the groups with respect to surgical margin positivity or postoperative PSA levels.
The continuing expansion of robotic surgery will make it necessary to intensify our research efforts, including the performance of more robust studies with longer follow-up periods, which may help elucidate the implications of the results obtained.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at the website of this paper posted on Preprints.org.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.G.F. and S.G.B.; methodology, S.G.F. and S.G.B.; investigation, S.G.F. and G.M.S.; resources, S.G.B., G.M.S. and G.F.C.; data curation, S.G.F. and G.M.S.; formal analysis, S.G.B.; project administration, F.J.B.R.; writing—original draft preparation, S.G.F.; writing—review and editing, S.G.B., G.M.S., G.F.C. and F.J.B.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013) and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (protocol code: 56021927PCR3011).

Data: Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The dataset has been fully de-identified to ensure patient confidentiality.

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI; GPT-5.6 Sol) for English-language editing, refinement of scientific wording, and adaptation to journal-specific formatting and reporting requirements. The authors reviewed and edited all AI-assisted content and take full responsibility for the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript
LPC Localized prostate cancer
PR Radical prostatectomy
RARP Robot assisted radical prostatectomy
BMI Body mass index
CMR Cambridge Medical Robotics
MRi Magnetic resonance imaging
PSA Prostate-specific antigen
LRP Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

References

  1. Lantz, A.; Bock, D.; Akre, O.; Angenete, E.; Bjartell, A.; Carlsson, S.; Koss Modig, K.; Nyberg, M.; Stinesen Kollberg, K.; Steineck, G.; et al. Functional and oncological outcomes after open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer: 8-year follow-up. Eur. Urol. 2021, 80, 650–660. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Tang, K.; Jiang, K.; Chen, H.; Chen, Z.; Xu, H.; Ye, Z. Robotic vs. retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and a meta-analysis update. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 32237–32257. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Frota, R.; Turna, B.; Barros, R.; Gill, I.S. Comparison of radical prostatectomy techniques: Open, laparoscopic and robotic assisted. Int. Braz. J. Urol. 2008, 34, 259–269. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Pal, R.P.; Koupparis, A.J. Expanding the indications of robotic surgery in urology: A systematic review of the literature. Arab J. Urol. 2018, 16, 270–284. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Abdelhakim, M.A.; Abdelwahab, M. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with the Versius surgical platform: An objective criticism and a guide for an optimal surgical setup. Arab J. Urol. 2025, 23, 152–159. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Dibitetto, F.; Castellucci, R.; Russo, P.; Marino, F.; Gavi, F.; Ragonese, M.; Foschi, N.; Nigro, D.; Akhundov, A.; Defidio, L.; et al. Extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy by the da Vinci and Versius System: First comparative analysis. Minerva Urol. Nephrol. 2024, 76, 570–577. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Carbonara, U.; Srinath, M.; Crocerossa, F.; Ferro, M.; Cantiello, F.; Lucarelli, G.; Porpiglia, F.; Battaglia, M.; Ditonno, P.; Autorino, R. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: An evidence-based analysis of comparative outcomes. World J. Urol. 2021, 39, 3721–3732. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Kim, D.K.; Moon, Y.J.; Chung, D.Y.; Jung, H.D.; Jeon, S.H.; Kang, S.H.; Paick, S.; Lee, J.Y. Comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy outcomes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis from KSER update series. Medicina 2025, 61, 61. [CrossRef]
  9. Brime Menendez, R.; García Rojo, E.; Hevia Palacios, V.; Feltes Ochoa, J.A.; Justo Quintas, J.; Lista Mateos, F.; Fraile, A.; Manfredi, C.; Belli, S.; Bozzini, G.; et al. Da Vinci vs. Hugo RAS for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A prospective comparative single-center study. World J. Urol. 2024, 42, 336. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Fernández-Conejo, G.; Subiela Henríquez, J.D.; Tagalos Muñoz, A.; González Álvarez, C.; Fernández Mardomingo, A.; Sanz Mayayo, E.; Díez Nicolás, V.; García Barreras, S.; Gómez Dos Santos, V.; Rodríguez-Patrón, R.; et al. Standardizing radical prostatectomy with the Versius robotic system: Technical setup and early institutional experience. J. Robot. Surg. 2025, 19, 470. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. De Maria, M.; Meneghetti, I.; Mosillo, L.; Collins, J.W.; Catalano, C. Versius robotic surgical system: Case series of 18 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies. BJU Int. 2024, 133, 197–205. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Reddy, K.; Gharde, P.; Tayade, H.; Patil, M.; Reddy, L.S.; Surya, D. Advancements in robotic surgery: A comprehensive overview of current utilizations and upcoming frontiers. Cureus 2023, 15, e50415. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Haig, F.; Medeiros, A.C.B.; Chitty, K.; Slack, M. Usability assessment of Versius, a new robot-assisted surgical device for use in minimal access surgery. BMJ Surg. Interv. Health Technol. 2020, 2, e000028. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Thomas, B.C.; Slack, M.; Hussain, M.; Barber, N.; Pradhan, A.; Dinneen, E.; Stewart, G.D. Preclinical evaluation of the Versius surgical system, a new robot-assisted surgical device for use in minimal access renal and prostate surgery. Eur. Urol. Focus 2021, 7, 444–452. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Soumpasis, I.; Nashef, S.; Dunning, J.; Moran, P.; Slack, M. Safe implementation of surgical innovation: A prospective registry of the Versius robotic surgical system. BMJ Surg. Interv. Health Technol. 2023, 5, e000144. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Participants. Available online: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki/ (accessed on 28 April 2026).
  17. Evidencio. Novel Briganti Nomogram: Predicting the Risk of Lymph Node Involvement in Prostate Cancer Patients. Available online: https://www.evidencio.com/models/show/917 (accessed on 28 April 2026).
  18. Cornford, P.; Tilki, D.; van den Bergh, R.C.N.; Briers, E.; Eberli, D.; De Meerleer, G.; De Santis, M.; Gillessen, S.; Henry, A.M.; van Leenders, G.J.L.H.; et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer; European Association of Urology: Arnhem, The Netherlands, 2024. Available online: https://d56bochluxqnz.cloudfront.net/documents/EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-2024.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2026).
  19. Murphy, D.G.; Challacombe, B.J.; Costello, A.J. Outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Asian J. Androl. 2009, 11, 94–99. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Mazzone, E.; Mistretta, F.A.; Knipper, S.; Tian, Z.; Larcher, A.; Widmer, H.; Zorn, K.; Capitanio, U.; Graefen, M.; Montorsi, F.; et al. Contemporary national assessment of robot-assisted surgery rates and total hospital charges for major surgical uro-oncological procedures in the United States. J. Endourol. 2019, 33, 438–447. [CrossRef]
  21. Gaia, G.; Sighinolfi, M.C.; Afonina, M.; Terzoni, S.; Iannuzzi, V.; Felline, M.; et al. Versius surgical system: Tips and tricks for OR setting and port placement for pelvic surgery, our experience in a multi-robotic referral centre. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2025, 410, 252. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Połom, W.; Matuszewski, M. Initial experience of the Versius robotic system in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A study of 58 cases. Cent. Eur. J. Urol. 2024, 77, 30–36. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Reitano, G.; Tumminello, A.; Ghaffar, U.; Saggionetto, G.; Taverna, A.; Mangiacavallo, F.; Ahmed, M.E.; Basourakos, S.P.; Carletti, F.; Minardi, D.; et al. Perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of new multiport robotic platforms in urology: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. Open Sci. 2025, 74, 44–70. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Meneghetti, I.; Dibitetto, F.; Mariotti, A.; Morganti, R.; Collins, J.; Pacetti, P.; Corsini, A.; Mosillo, L.; Belli, S.; Boni, R.; et al. Preliminary multicenter experience with the Versius robotic surgical system for radical prostatectomy: Oncological.
  25. outcomes with a minimum 18-month of follow-up. Int. J. Med. Robot. Comput. Assist. Surg. 2026, 22, e70144. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Yossepowitch, O.; Briganti, A.; Eastham, J.A.; Epstein, J.; Graefen, M.; Montironi, R.; Touijer, K. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and contemporary update. Eur. Urol. 2014, 65, 303–313. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Abdelhakim, M.; Morsy, S.; Abdelghany, M.; Fouad, A.; Abdelwahab, M. Outcomes and efficacy of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy using the CMR Versius platform: A prospective study on 118 patients with 1-year follow-up. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2025, 57, 2081–2087. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Gandi, C.; Marino, F.; Totaro, A.; Scarciglia, E.; Bellavia, F.; Bientinesi, R.; Gavi, F.; Russo, P.; Ragonese, M.; Palermo, G.; et al. Perioperative outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy with Hugo™ RAS versus daVinci surgical platform: Propensity score-matched comparative analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 3157. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Balestrazzi, E.; Paciotti, M.; Piro, A.; et al. Comparative analysis of robot-assisted simple prostatectomy: The HUGO™ RAS system versus the DaVinci® Xi system. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024, 27, 122–128. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Walz, J.; Attard, G.; Bjartell, A.; Blanchard, P.; Castro, E.; Compérat, E.; Emmett, L.; Fanti, S.; Fonteyne, V.; Foulon, S.; et al. Local and locoregional prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2026, 37, 453–469. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Eastham, J.A.; Barocas, D.A.; Chu, C.E.; Morgans, A.K.; Rodrigues, G.; Kirkby, E.; Pak, L.J.; Patel, S. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO guideline amendment (2026). J. Urol. 2026, 216, 2–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients undergoing a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the two systems under analysis.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients undergoing a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the two systems under analysis.
Variables Versius® (n = 169) DaVinci® (n = 109) p value
Age (years), mean ± SD 64.37 ± 6,40 63.99 ± 6.79 0.636
BMI (kg/m2), mean ± SD 27.27 ± 3.80 27.38 ± 3.52 0.813
Preoperative PSA level (ng/mL), mean ± SD 8.37 ± 5.57 8.42 ± 5.47 0.937
Prostate volume (MRi) (cc), mean ± SD 46.78 ± 22.26 52.97 ± 25.62 0.073
PI-RADS score (MRi), n (%)     0.817
PI-RADS 3 .
15 (13.3%)		 11 (13.1%)  
PI-RADS 4 53 (46.9%) 41 (48.8%)  
PI-RADS 5 21 (18.6%) 15 (17.9%)  
ISUP grade (diagnostic biopsy), n (%)     0.272
ISUP 1 10 (6.0%) 11 (11.8%)  
ISUP 2 78 (47.0%) 42 (45.2%)  
ISUP 3 61 (36.7%) 26 (28.0%)  
ISUP 4 13 (7.8%) 10 (10.8%)  
ISUP 5 4 (2.4%) 4 (4.3%)  
BMI: body mass index; PSA: prostate-specific antigen; MRi: magnetic resonance imaging; ISUP: International Society of Urological Pathology. Continuous values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and categorical variables are expressed as number of patients and percentage.
Table 2. Intra- and postoperative results of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the two systems under analysis.
Table 2. Intra- and postoperative results of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the two systems under analysis.
Variables Versius® (n = 169) DaVinci® (n = 109) p value
Neurovascular bundle preservation, n (%) 29 (17.4%) 53 (48.6%) <0.001
Pelvic lymph node dissection, n (%) 60 (35.5%) 47 (43.1%) 0.203
Intraoperative complications, n (%) 1 (0.6%) 1 (0.9%) 0.83
Postoperative complications Clavien-Dindo > II, n (%) 7 (4.1%) 9 (8.3%) 0.15
Pre-postoperative Hb difference (g/dL), mean ± SD 2.47 ± 1.18 2.31 ± 0.95 0.687
Transfusion requirement, n (%) 3 (1.8%) 1 (0.9%) 0.389
Drainage time (days), mean ± SD 2.73 ± 1.84 2.97 ± 2.29 0.327
Length of hospital stay (days), mean ± SD 2.98 ± 2.44 3.27 ± 2.36 0.326
Hb: hemoglobin; SD: standard deviation. Continuous values are expressed as mean ± SD and categorical variables are expressed as number of patients and percentage. The p value was calculated using Student’s t test for continuous variables and the chi-squared test or Fisher’s Exact Test for categorical variables, as appropriate.
Table 3. Pathological analysis of the specimen retrieved during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the two systems under analysis.
Table 3. Pathological analysis of the specimen retrieved during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the two systems under analysis.
Variables Versius® (n = 169) DaVinci® (n = 109) p value
ISUP grade, n (%)     0.191
ISUP 1 4 (2.4%) 4 (3.7%)  
ISUP 2 51 (30.9%) 47 (43.1%)  
ISUP 3 78 (47.3%) 40 (36.7%)  
ISUP 4 24 (14.5%) 11 (10.1%)  
ISUP 5 8 (4.8%) 7 (6.4%)  
pT stage, n (%)     0.513
pT2 127 (76.0%) 88 (80.7%)  
pT3a 25 (15.0%) 12 (11.0%)  
pT3b 15 (9.0%) 9 (8.3%)  
Nodal status (pN), n (%)     0.014
pN0 58 (95.1%) 40 (80.0%)  
pN1 3 (4.9%) 10 (20.0%)  
Surgical margin positivity, n (%) 68 (40.7%) 32 (29.4%) 0.055
Perineural invasion n (%) 148 (88.6%) 95 (87.2%) 0.714
Specimen’s tumor volume (%), mean ± SD 16.78 ± 14.04 14.15 ± 12.35 0.112
Prostate volume, mean ± SD 53.61 ± 21.28 57.19 ± 22.27 0.183
ISUP: International Society of Urological Pathology; SD: standard deviation. Continuous values are expressed as means ± SD and categorical variables are expressed as number of patients and percentage. The p value was calculated using Student’s t test for continuous variables and the chi-square test or Fisher’s Exact Test for categorical variables, as appropriate.
Table 4. Follow-up results of robot-assisted radical prostatectomies performed using the two systems under analysis.
Table 4. Follow-up results of robot-assisted radical prostatectomies performed using the two systems under analysis.
Variables Versius® (n = 169) DaVinci® (n = 109) p value
PSA at two months (ng/mL), median (IQR) 0 (0) 0 (0,01) 0.844
Emergency room visits, n (%) 78 (46.2%) 40 (36.7%) 0.135
Hospital readmissions, n (%) 11 (6.5%) 11 (10.1%) 0.27
Urinary incontinence at 3 months, n (%) 112/162 (69.1%) 50/99 (50.5%) 0.003
Urinary incontinence at 6 months, n (%) 41/120 (34.2%) 17/83 (20.5%) 0.034
Urinary incontinence at 12 months, n (%) 17/85 (20.0%) 4/50 (8.0%) 0.063
IQR: interquartile range. Continuous values are expressed as mean (IQR) and categorical variables are expressed as number of patients and percentage. The p value for postoperative PSA levels as calculated using the Mann–Whitney test. The remaining categorical variables were compared using the chi-squared test or Fisher’s Exact Test, as appropriate. The functional outcomes correspond to the follow-up data available at the time of the analysis, which explains the progressive decrease in the number of patients available for evaluation at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperative.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.