ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Hugo™ RAS for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: outcomes from a consecutive single-center study at a Hugo-exclusive institution.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.