SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
A systematic review of global experiences with Medtronic's Hugo™ robotic system for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Alternative set up strategies for upper tract robotic surgery with the Hugo RAS - experience from an early adopter institution.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has become a widely used modality for the excision of renal tumours. Medtronic's Hugo™ Robotic-Assisted Surgery (RAS) system has emerged as a promising alternative to the established Intuitive da Vinci® platform. Due to increasing use, this systematic review has been conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of the Hugo™ RAS system for RAPN. A comprehensive search was conducted to identify eligible studies that reported outcomes and experience of using the Hugo™ system for RAPN. Following appropriate screening and risk of bias assessment using ROBINS-I, results were collated into a narrative synthesis. Eight studies were included in the review. Within these, 145 patients had undergone RAPN using the Hugo™ system. These studies comprised one comparative and seven single-arm case series. Patient demographics, peri-operative outcomes, pathological outcomes and safety and feasibility parameters were extracted from the included studies. Across all these metrics, the Hugo™ system performed well. One notable finding was longer docking times compared to the da Vinci® system; however, with increasing experience and familiarity with this novel platform, this is expected to decrease. Despite the lack of high-quality evidence and few studies, the Hugo™ RAS system is a feasible option for conducting RAPN. It offered comparable and promising initial outcomes in several aspects compared to da Vinci®, alongside flexibility in docking setup. Further large-scale comparative studies are needed to corroborate the findings of this review and evaluate the longer term safety and efficacy of the Hugo™ RAS system for RAPN.
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.