SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
The Hugo™ RAS system in gynecologic robotic surgery: a systematic review of current applications.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic versus open (or laparoscopic) hysterectomy: a comprehensive review of clinical, surgical, and economic outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Cross-platform integration of robotic intraoperative ultrasound using system-agnostic drop-in probes: technical feasibility and workflow standardization.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Hugo RAS Versus Da Vinci in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Outcome Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A systematic scoping review of Hugo™ RAS (robot-assisted surgery) docking concordance in gynecologic robotic surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Port placement and patient-specific docking strategies for robotic hysterectomy with the Hugo™ RAS system: an international Delphi consensus.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Hugo™ Robotic-Assisted Surgery (RAS) system is a recent development in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. Following regulatory approval, its clinical use has expanded. However, comprehensive evidence on feasibility, safety and surgical outcomes has not been established. This systematic review synthesizes the available clinical data on the application of this robotic system across gynecologic procedures. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024519329), interrogating PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases. Manuscripts reporting data on patients undergoing gynecologic surgical procedures with the Hugo™ RAS platform were included in the analysis.
resultsQualitative analysis was conducted on twelve studies including 445 patients. Hysterectomy was the main procedure (either total or supracervical; n = 289, 64.9%), with primary indications including fibromatosis (n = 149, 33.5%) and endometriosis (n = 92, 20.7%). Some studies (n = 5, 41.7%) included patients with gynecologic malignancies, mainly endometrial cancer; one reported robotic management of a perivesical recurrence. Few conversions (laparotomy n = 1, 0.22%; laparoscopy n = 5, 1.12%), intraoperative complications (n = 4, 0.90%), and postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ II, 1.57%) occurred. Weighted mean operative, console and docking times were 141.84 ± 28.73, 97.98 ± 28.13, and 5.90 ± 0.94 min, respectively. Estimated blood loss averaged 110.75 ± 84.16 mL, and mean hospital stay was 2 ± 1 days. Reported system malfunctions were generally manageable without significant clinical consequences.
conclusionsCurrent evidence indicates that the system can be safely implemented by gynecologic surgeons in routine clinical practice. Nevertheless, further high-quality research is required to determine long-term outcomes and to assess its integration within the evolving landscape of digital surgical technologies.
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.