ArticleBMC surgery2025
Hugo™ robotically assisted surgery versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign gynecological diseases: a secondary data analysis of clinical records in Panama.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Emerging robotic platforms in gynecologic surgery: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
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
backgroundThe study compared the characteristics of women undergoing Medtronic Hugo™ robotically assisted surgery (RAS) versus laparoscopic surgery (LS) for benign hysterectomy at two hospitals in Panama. It also analyzed the types of surgery associated with shorter operating times.
methodsWe performed a retrospective secondary data analysis of clinical records, from 63 women who underwent RAS and 59 who had LS, between July 1, 2022, and June 29, 2023. We analyzed age, body mass index (BMI), indications for hysterectomy, surgical type, time, complications, and hospital stays using Chi-square tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and multivariable linear regression.
resultsCompared to women who underwent LS, those in the RAS group were older and had lower BMI (p = 0.018). Surgical time and blood loss were lower in the RAS group (76 min vs. 117 min and 30 ml vs. 200 ml, p < 0.001). No complications occurred in either group. RAS was associated with a 22% reduction in surgical time after controlling for patients’ age, BMI, preoperative diagnoses, uterine weight, and blood loss during surgery (p 0.005).
conclusionHugo™ RAS showed a good safety profile and shorter operating time compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy, in contrast to previous research that indicated longer RAS durations. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.