Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38672683›Full record

ArticleCancers2024

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Performed with the Novel Surgical Robotic Platform Hugo™ RAS: Monocentric First Series of 132 Cases Reporting Surgical, and Early Functional and Oncological Outcomes at a Tertiary Referral Robotic Center.

Angelo Totaro, Eros Scarciglia, Filippo Marino, Marco Campetella, Carlo Gandi, Mauro Ragonese, Riccardo Bientinesi, Giuseppe Palermo, Francesco Pio Bizzarri, Antonio Cretì and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Hugo™ RAS versus da VinciBMC surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Medtronic's HugoJournal of robotic surgery · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

17 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Angelo TotaroDepartment of Urology, Agostino Gemelli Hospital Foundation-IRCCS, Catholic University Medical School, 00167 Rome, Italy.
Eros ScarcigliaDepartment of Urology, Agostino Gemelli Hospital Foundation-IRCCS, Catholic University Medical School, 00167 Rome, Italy.
Filippo MarinoDepartment of Urology, Agostino Gemelli Hospital Foundation-IRCCS, Catholic University Medical School, 00167 Rome, Italy.
Marco CampetellaDepartment of Urology, Isola Tiberina-Gemelli Isola Hospital, Catholic University Medical School, 00167 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7412-1214
Carlo GandiDepartment of Urology, Agostino Gemelli Hospital Foundation-IRCCS, Catholic University Medical School, 00167 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1349-7696
Mauro RagoneseDepartment of Urology, Agostino Gemelli Hospital Foundation-IRCCS, Catholic University Medical School, 00167 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1919-8729
Riccardo BientinesiDepartment of Urology, Agostino Gemelli Hospital Foundation-IRCCS, Catholic University Medical School, 00167 Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe PalermoDepartment of Urology, Agostino Gemelli Hospital Foundation-IRCCS, Catholic University Medical School, 00167 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3861-3545
Francesco Pio BizzarriDepartment of Urology, Agostino Gemelli Hospital Foundation-IRCCS, Catholic University Medical School, 00167 Rome, Italy.
Antonio CretìDepartment of Urology, Agostino Gemelli Hospital Foundation-IRCCS, Catholic University Medical School, 00167 Rome, Italy.
Simona PresuttiDepartment of Urology, Agostino Gemelli Hospital Foundation-IRCCS, Catholic University Medical School, 00167 Rome, Italy.
Andrea RussoDepartment of Anesthesia, Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, Agostino Gemelli Hospital Foundation-IRCCS, Catholic University Medical School, 00167 Rome, Italy.
Paola AcetoDepartment of Anesthesia, Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, Agostino Gemelli Hospital Foundation-IRCCS, Catholic University Medical School, 00167 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0228-0603
Pierfrancesco BassiDepartment of Urology, Agostino Gemelli Hospital Foundation-IRCCS, Catholic University Medical School, 00167 Rome, Italy.
Francesco PiercontiDepartment of Pathological Anatomy, Agostino Gemelli Hospital Foundation-IRCCS, Catholic University Medical School, 00167 Rome, Italy.
Marco RacioppiDepartment of Urology, Agostino Gemelli Hospital Foundation-IRCCS, Catholic University Medical School, 00167 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9129-8479
Emilio SaccoDepartment of Urology, Isola Tiberina-Gemelli Isola Hospital, Catholic University Medical School, 00167 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4640-8354
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic-assisted surgery is the gold standard for performing radical prostatectomy (RARP), with new robotic devices such as Hugo

objectiveWe report the surgical, perioperative, and early postoperative outcomes of RARP using Hugo DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsBetween April 2022 and October 2023, we performed 132 procedures using the Montsouris technique with a four-robotic-arm configuration in patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer (PCa). OUTCOME MEASURES: We collected intraoperative and perioperative data during hospitalization, along with follow-up data at predefined postoperative intervals of 3 and 6 months. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Lymphadenectomy was performed in 25 procedures, with a bilateral nerve-sparing technique in 33 and a monolateral nerve-sparing technique in 33 cases. The mean total surgery time was 242 (±57) min, the mean console time was 124 (±48) min, and the mean docking time was 10 (±2) min. We identified 17 system errors related to robotic arm failures, 9 robotic instrument breakdowns, and 8 significant conflicts between robotic arms. One post-operative complication was classified as Clavien-Dindo 3b. None of the adverse events, whether singular or combined, increased the operative time. Positive margins (pR1) were found in 54 (40.9%) histological specimens, 37 (28.0%) of which were clinically significant. At 3 and 6 months post-surgery, the PSA levels were undetectable in 94.6% and 92.1% of patients, respectively. Social urinary continence was regained in 86% after 6 months. Limitations of our study include its observational monocentric case-series design and the short follow-up data for functional and oncological outcomes.

conclusionsOur initial experience highlights the reliability of the Hugo

Indexed as

intraoperative technical dataMedtronic HugoTM RAS systemprostate cancerrobot-assisted radical prostatectomyrobotic surgerysurgical outcomes

Identifiers

PMID38672683
PMCPMC11049006
OpenAlexW4395004239

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.