Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42474937›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026

Hugo™ RAS for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: outcomes from a consecutive single-center study at a Hugo-exclusive institution.

Hiroki Kamikawa, Shun Takai, Kosuke Tsuda, Soichiro Yamada, Keiko Okumura, Nobuyuki Fukuhara, Tomoyasu Sano, Shohei Ishida, Yoshihisa Matsukawa, Shusuke Akamatsu and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Hiroki KamikawaDepartment of Urology, Kasugai Municipal Hospital, Kasugai, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-3200-8688
Shun TakaiDepartment of Urology, Kasugai Municipal Hospital, Kasugai, Japan.
Kosuke TsudaDepartment of Urology, Kasugai Municipal Hospital, Kasugai, Japan.
Soichiro YamadaDepartment of Urology, Kasugai Municipal Hospital, Kasugai, Japan.
Keiko OkumuraDepartment of Urology, Kasugai Municipal Hospital, Kasugai, Japan.
Nobuyuki FukuharaDepartment of Urology, Kasugai Municipal Hospital, Kasugai, Japan.
Tomoyasu SanoDepartment of Urology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, 466-8550, Japan.
Shohei IshidaDepartment of Urology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, 466-8550, Japan.
Yoshihisa MatsukawaDepartment of Urology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, 466-8550, Japan.
Shusuke AkamatsuDepartment of Urology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, 466-8550, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1394-7506
Kenji ZennamiDepartment of Urology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, 466-8550, Japan. zennami.kenji.e6@f.mail.nagoya-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8455-7364
MEGUMI (MEidai GenitoUrinaryMega Investigation) project

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most early reports on the Hugo™ Robotic- assisted surgery (RAS) system originated from institutions with concurrent access to established robotic platforms, potentially introducing device selection bias. We conducted a retrospective assessment of 103 patients with localized prostate cancer treated using Hugo™ RAS-assisted robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at a Japanese municipal hospital where no alternative robotic platform was available. The analysis focused on perioperative performance, safety outcomes, and consistency of procedural implementation. A standardized surgical setup, including a W-shaped port configuration and predefined floor-marking-based docking strategy, was applied. Surgery was carried out by six surgeons with different levels of robotic experience, including one surgeon without prior robotic operative experience. Operative, console, and docking durations showed median values of 152 min (IQR 129-218.5), 108 min (IQR 85-174.5), and 5 min (IQR 4-7), respectively. Estimated intraoperative blood loss was 100 mL (IQR 50-214). Neither intraoperative blood transfusion nor conversion to open surgery was necessary in any patient. Postoperative complications occurred in four patients (3.9%), including one major complication (Clavien-Dindo > II; 1.0%). Positive surgical margins were observed in 35 patients (34.0%) and 79.6% achieved urinary continence at 3 months. In this Hugo-exclusive, single-platform environment, RARP using the Hugo™ RAS system was performed without major safety concerns across surgeons with varying experience. Although four independent-arm carts needed to be rolled in, the median docking time was 5 min, possibly facilitated by a standardized floor-marking strategy adopted at our institution.

Indexed as

ProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedBlood Loss, SurgicalHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeHugo RASPerioperative outcomesProstate cancerReproducibilityRobot-assisted radical prostatectomyRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID42474937
PMCPMC13385071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.