ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2023
The new surgical robot Hugo™ RAS for total hysterectomy: a pilot study.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emerging robotic platforms in gynecologic surgery: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative operative performance of three robotic platforms in benign gynecologic surgery: a single-surgeon retrospective cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted hysterectomy using DEXTERFacts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2025Article
- Multicenter evaluation of the DEXTER® Robotic Surgery System for Total Hysterectomy with Adnexal Surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Observational
- Initial Experience with the Saroa Surgical System in Robot-Assisted Hysterectomy: First Clinical Case Series and Haptic Feedback Assessment.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Early outcomes of three new robotic surgical systems in patients undergoing hysterectomy.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the rising popularity of robotic surgery, Hugo™ RAS is one of the newest surgical robotic platforms. Investigating the reliability of this tool is the first step toward validating its use in clinical practice; and presently there arelimited data available regarding this. The literature is constantly enriched with initial experiences, however no study has demonstrated the safety of this platform yet. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate its reliability during total hysterectomy. Materials and Methods: A series of 20 consecutive patients scheduled for minimally invasive total hysterectomy with or without salpingo-oophorectomy for benign disease or prophylactic surgery were selected to undergo surgery with Hugo™ RAS. Data regarding any malfunction or breakdown of the robotic system as well as intra- and post-operative complications were prospectively recorded. Results: Fifteen of the twenty patients (75.0%) underwent surgery for benign uterine diseases, and five (25.0%) underwent prophylactic surgery. Among the entire series, an instrument fault occurred in one case (5.0%). The problem was solved in 4.8 minutes and without complications for the patient. The median total operative time was 127 min (range, 98-255 min). The median estimated blood loss was 50 mL (range:30-125 mL). No intraoperative complications were observed. One patient (5.0%) developed Clavien-Dindo grade 2 post-operative complication. Conclusions: In this pilot study, Hugo™ RAS showed high reliability, similar to other robotic devices. What is new?: Present findings suggest that Hugo™ RAS is a viable option for major surgical procedures and deserves further investigation in clinical practice.
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.