ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
Robotic-Assisted Vesicovaginal Fistula Repair: A Comparative Analysis Between Hugo RAS and da Vinci Xi Systems.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Hugo™ RAS system in gynecologic robotic surgery: a systematic review of current applications.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Attention to the Editor - Case series: "Laparoscopic robot-assisted extravesical repair of vesicovaginal fistula post-hysterectomy: a study of peritoneal flap inlay technique and outcomes".Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Management of Panurethral Strictures by Preputial Graft Urethroplasty: Outcomes From a Tertiary Care Centre.Cureus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the outcomes of vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) repair using two different robotic systems.
designThis retrospective comparative study analysed the surgical outcomes of VVF repair utilizing two different robotic platforms: the Hugo RAS Medtronic robot and the da Vinci Xi robot.
methodsVVF repair was performed with da Vinci Xi system (n = 15) and Hugo RAS Medtronic robot (n = 11) in a non-randomized fashion. Patient demographics, operative details (operative time and blood loss), intraoperative complications and postoperative outcomes were recorded and analysed.
resultsThe mean age of patients undergoing VVF repair was 41.2 years. In the Medtronic arm, the mean operative time was 82 min, with a mean blood loss of 60 ml. In the da Vinci arm, the mean operative time was 76 min, with a mean blood loss of 60 ml. Intraoperative complication was not observed in either group. Postoperative complications were minimal, with none exceeding Clavien-Dindo grade 2. Outcomes were comparable between both groups.
conclusionsOur study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of using both the Hugo RAS Medtronic robot and the da Vinci Xi robot for VVF repair. These preliminary findings suggest that robotic-assisted surgery is promising for VVF repair, irrespective of the robotic platform.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39636466What 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.