ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
A systematic scoping review of Hugo™ RAS (robot-assisted surgery) docking concordance in gynecologic robotic surgery.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Hugo™ RAS system (Medtronic) is a modular four-arm robotic platform increasingly used in gynecologic surgery since its 2021 European approval. A first international Delphi exercise on docking was published in 2026, but whether published practice aligns with it, and how completely docking variables are reported, remains unmapped. We conducted a systematic scoping review (PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, PRISMA-ScR) with structured analytical extensions of the gynecologic Hugo™ RAS literature published 1 January 2022-15 May 2026, searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and grey literature. Two reviewers independently extracted seven in-depth sources; agreement used Cohen's weighted κ, with every disagreement reconciled against the source. Each recommendation was scored concordant, discordant, or not assessable against the conventional two-thirds (66.7%) Delphi threshold. Effect estimates were not pooled; the extensions are descriptive mapping tools, not a meta-analysis. Inter-rater agreement on coding was almost perfect for the proposed Hugo Docking Minimum Reporting Set (HuDoc-MRS; κ 0.927) and substantial for concordance (κ 0.808). Of recommendations crossing the 66.7% threshold, only the modified-bridge configuration (15/16, 93.7% panel) also exceeded 50% uptake across the six clinical cohorts and is therefore the only recommendation both consensus-supported and consistently reported. Two anthropometry-driven modifications (increased inter-port distance for body mass index > 30; cranial port displacement for an enlarged uterus; each 11/16, 68.7% panel) showed low uptake (≤ 22% and ≤ 8%), the principal translation gap. No included study formally codified external arm collisions; reporting was verbal only. In the gynecologic Hugo™ RAS literature to date, the modified-bridge configuration is the only recommendation both strongly endorsed by the 2026 Delphi panel and consistently applied across the included cohorts. Anthropometry-driven modifications are consensus-supported but rarely reported-an actionable translation gap, not evidence of disuse. External collisions remain uncodified; the HuDoc-MRS is proposed as a candidate minimum reporting set to improve future comparability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42474893What 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.