Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41175334›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025

Comparative outcomes of Hugo™ robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in a high-volume tertiary center: a propensity-matched study.

S Mastrovito, Davide Arrigo, C Riccetti, G Campagna, F Natale, A Ercoli, A Fagotti, F Fanfani, G Panico

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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.

S MastrovitoDepartment of Woman, Child and Public Health, Gynecologic Oncology Complex Unit, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, Rome, Italy.
Davide ArrigoDepartment of Woman, Child and Public Health, Gynecologic Oncology Complex Unit, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, Rome, Italy. davide.arrigo97@gmail.com.
C RiccettiDepartment of Woman, Child and Public Health, Gynecologic Oncology Complex Unit, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, Rome, Italy.
G CampagnaComplex Operating Unit of Surgical Gynecology and Urogynecology, Isola Tiberina - Gemelli Isola Hospital, Rome, Italy.
F NataleDepartment of Woman, Child and Public Health, Gynecologic Oncology Complex Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, 00168, Italy.
A ErcoliUnit of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Human Pathology of Adults and Developmental Age, University Hospital G. Martino, Messina, 98100, Italy.
A FagottiDepartment of Woman, Child and Public Health, Gynecologic Oncology Complex Unit, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, Rome, Italy.
F FanfaniDepartment of Woman, Child and Public Health, Gynecologic Oncology Complex Unit, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, Rome, Italy.
G PanicoDepartment of Woman, Child and Public Health, Gynecologic Oncology Complex Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, 00168, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMinimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (SCP) is regarded as the gold standard procedure for treating Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP). Robotic-assisted surgery has emerged as a solid alternative to laparoscopy. Recently, novel platforms have been introduced, including the Hugo RAS (MEDTRONIC Inc, USA), a modular system featuring independent bedside units and an open-designed console. Although solid evidence has shown comparable outcomes between RAS and laparoscopy, there is still limited evidence on the safety and feasibility of novel multi-arm robotic platforms.

designWe conducted a retrospective study analyzing data from 450 patients undergoing minimally invasive SCP (May 2022-December 2023), using propensity score matching to correct for treatment selection bias. The primary aim was to assess differences in 30-day Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ II complications, Secondary outcomes included intraoperative complications, estimated blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stay, and functional outcomes, to assess overall safety, feasibility, and outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted SCP performed with the Hugo RAS system.

settingAll patients underwent minimally invasive SCP at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.

participantsAfter excluding patients with missing data or incomplete follow-up and PSM, 284 patients were compared, 142 who underwent laparoscopic SCP and 142 who underwent robotic SCP with the Hugo™ RAS system.

interventionThe study aims to compare laparoscopic and robotic SCP performed with the Hugo™ RAS platform.

resultsShort- to mid-term outcomes were compared. RAS did not significantly differ from laparoscopy in terms of intra- or post-operative complications and length of hospitalization. The robotic group showed a slightly longer operative time and slightly lower intraoperative blood loss. The mean follow-up was 18 months (range 12-36) and a statistically significant improvement of objective and subjective outcomes was reported in both populations, with high satisfaction rate.

conclusionsThe Hugo™ RAS system resulted safe and effective to perform SCP for symptomatic POP, representing a feasible alternative to laparoscopy. These findings support its use as an alternative for the treatment of symptomatic POP and contribute to expanding the evidence for newer robotic platforms in urogynecologic and reconstructive pelvic surgery.

Indexed as

Gynecologic Surgical ProceduresLaparoscopyPelvic Organ ProlapseRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedBlood Loss, SurgicalFemaleHumansLength of StayMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTertiary Care CentersTreatment OutcomeHugo RAS systemPelvic organ prolapseRobotic surgerySacrocolpopexyUrogynecology

Identifiers

PMID41175334
PMCPMC12579630

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.