ArticleFrontiers in surgery2023
The first 60 cases of robotic sacrocolpopexy with the novel HUGO RAS system: feasibility, setting and perioperative outcomes.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emerging robotic platforms in gynecologic surgery: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- The Hugo™ RAS system in gynecologic robotic surgery: a systematic review of current applications.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of robot vs. laparoscopic surgery in urogynecology: current trends and future directions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy using the Hugo-RAS system: initial series with no experience in robotic surgery.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2026Article
- Feasibility and early outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy with the VersiusFacts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2025Article
- Comparative outcomes of Hugo™ robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in a high-volume tertiary center: a propensity-matched study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Global research trends of robotic-assisted surgery in Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery: a bibliometric and visualization analysis based on web of science.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Laparoscopic management of presacral retroperitoneal haematoma after sacrocolpopexy.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2025Article
- Feasibility and Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy Using Autologous Round Ligament Grafts: A Novel Non-Mesh Surgical Approach for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes of New Multiport Robotic Platforms in Urology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.European urology open science · 2025Review
- Comparative study between Hugo™ RAS and intuitive da Vinci Xi systems in different gynecologic surgeries: a single-institution perspective study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Implementation and outcomes in benign gynecological surgery with HUGO™ RAS system 12 months initial experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- New horizons in gynecological surgery: first-year experience with HUGO™ robotic-assisted surgery system at two tertiary referral robotic centers.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- Comparison between DaVinciJournal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Da Vinci vs. Hugo RAS for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparative single-center study.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Evaluation status of current and emerging minimally invasive robotic surgical platforms.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: We present the preliminary report of the first 60 cases of robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSCP) performed with a minimally invasive approach by using the new HUGO RAS system (Medtronic) with the aim of assessing its feasibility, safety and efficacy. Methods: Results in terms of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, post-operative pain, length of hospitalisation, intra and post-operative complications were comparable to previously described laparoscopic and robotic techniques. Results: Urogynecological assessment at three months follow up showed surgical anatomic success in 96.7% of patients (<2 POP-Q stage), while subjective cure rate was 98.3%. Conclusions: This is the first series analyzing RSCP outcomes for POP using the new Hugo RAS system. Our results suggest effectiveness both in objective and subjective outcomes, with minimal intra and post-operative complications. Larger series as well as longer follow-up are needed to better define advantages and possible disadvantages of this novel system. Our work may represent the basis of future studies to confirm its safety, efficacy and feasibility, and may provide technical notes for other centres that wish to perform RSCP through this innovative system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.