ArticleBMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies2025
Early clinical evaluation of the Hugo robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for performing radical prostatectomy: an IDEAL stage 2 study.
Article in BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies, 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.
- Hugo™ RAS versus da VinciBMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Open vs. robotic prostatectomy using VersiusJournal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
- Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy using the Hugo-RAS system: initial series with no experience in robotic surgery.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the feasibility and safety of the new Hugo robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) system for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), describing iterative changes in our operative technique-IDEAL stage 2. Design: Prospective, single-centre series. Setting: Tertiary urological unit in London, UK. Participants: Male patients diagnosed with clinically localised prostate cancer and suitable for RARP from February 2023 to May 2024. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was to assess the safety of using the device without converting to the existing robotic platform (da Vinci), laparoscopy or open. Secondary outcomes assessed surgical (operative time, blood loss, time to catheter removal, complications), oncologic (surgical pathology and margin status) and early functional (continence) outcomes. Results: 50 patients were included in the study. No cases required conversion to an existing robotic platform, laparoscopy or open, and there were no intraoperative surgical complications. Mean age was 60 years and mean prostate-specific antigen was 12.2 ng/mL. The mean operative time was 148 min and estimated blood loss was 168 mL. Mean length of stay was 1.5 days and mean length of catheter duration was 13 days. On final pathology, 18 patients (36%) had T3 disease and four had positive surgical margins (8%). The mean International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence score for urinary continence at 3 months was 7. There were six Clavien-Dindo grade 2 complications and two Clavien-Dindo 3a complications. There were four instances of recoverable, temporary device failure. Iterative improvements were made to docking setup, use of robotic instruments and reduction in robotic arm collisions. Conclusions: We demonstrated feasibility and the safe introduction of the Hugo RAS for RARP into an experienced robotic urological programme. Perioperative, early oncological and functional outcomes were similar to other early series. Further studies will aim to describe the learning curve with this robot and optimisation of surgical quality.
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.