Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38128091›Full record

ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2023

The new surgical robot Hugo™ RAS for total hysterectomy: a pilot study.

G Monterossi, L Pedone Anchora, R Oliva, A Fagotti, F Fanfani, B Costantini, A Naldini, D Giannarelli, G Scambia

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy using DEXTERFacts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2025
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

G Monterossi
L Pedone Anchora
R Oliva
A Fagotti
F Fanfani
B Costantini
A Naldini
D Giannarelli
G Scambia
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID38128091
PMCPMC10832655
OpenAlexW4390120270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.