Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Initial experience of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with Hugo™ RAS system: implications for surgical setting

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Hugo™ RAS system is one of the most promising new robotic platforms introduced in the field of urology. To date, no data have been provided on robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) performed with Hugo™ RAS system. The aim of the study is to describe the setting and report the performance of the first series of RAPN performed with Hugo™ RAS system.

Methods

Ten consecutive patients who underwent RAPN at our Institution between February and December 2022 were prospectively enrolled. All RAPN were performed transperitoneally with a modular four-arm configuration. The main outcome was to describe the operative room setting, trocar placement and the performance of this novel robotic platform. Pre, intra and post-operative, variables were recorded. A descriptive analysis was performed.

Results

Seven patients underwent RAPN for right-side and three for left-side masses. Median tumor size and PADUA score were 3 (2.2–3.7) cm and 9 (8–9), respectively. Median docking and console time were 9.5 (9–14) and 138 (124–162) minutes, respectively. Median warm ischemia time was 13 (10–14) minutes, and one case was performed clamp-less. Median estimated blood loss was 90 (75–100) mL. One major complication (Clavien-Dindo 3a) occurred. No case of positive surgical margin was recorded.

Conclusion

This is the first series to prove the feasibility of Hugo™ RAS system in the setting of RAPN. These preliminary results may help new adopters of this surgical platform to identify critical steps of robotic surgery with this platform and explore solutions before in-vivo surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The dataset generated during and/or analysed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Rassweiler JJ, Autorino R, Klein J et al (2017) Future of robotic surgery in urology. BJU Int 120(6):822–841

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Liatsikos E, Tsaturyan A, Kyriazis I et al (2022) Market potentials of robotic systems in medical science: analysis of the Avatera robotic system. World J Urol 40(1):283–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S et al (2009) Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 56(5):786–793

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH et al (2009) A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 150:604–612

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Farinha R, Breda A, Porter J et al (2022) RAPN-Delphi surgeons group. International expert consensus on metric-based characterization of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol Focus S2405–4569(22):00226–00227

    Google Scholar 

  7. Farinha R, Puliatti S, Mazzone E et al (2022) Potential contenders for the leadership in robotic surgery. J Endourol 36(3):317–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mottaran A, Paciotti M, Bravi CA et al (2022) Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy with the novel HUGO™ RAS system: feasibility, setting, and perioperative outcomes. Minerva Urol Nephrol. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.22.05031-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mottaran A, Bravi C, Sarchi L et al (2022) Robot-assisted sacropexy with the novel HUGO™ RAS system: initial experience and surgical setup at a tertiary referral robotic center. J Endourol. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2022.0495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Larkins KM, Mohan HM, Gray M et al (2022) Transferability of robotic console skills by early robotic surgeons: a multi-platform crossover trial of simulation training. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01475-w

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Sarchi L, Mottaran A, Bravi CA et al (2022) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy feasibility and setting with the Hugo™ robot-assisted surgery system. BJU Int 130(5):671–675

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bravi CA, Paciotti M, Sarchi L et al (2022) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with the Novel Hugo robotic system: initial experience and optimal surgical set-up at a tertiary referral robotic center. Eur Urol 82(2):233–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ragavan N, Bharathkumar S, Chirravur P et al (2022) Evaluation of Hugo RAS system in major urologic surgery: our initial experience. J Endourol 36(8):1029–1035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Andrea Gallioli and Alessandro Uleri have equally contributed to the manuscript.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Carrer de Cartagena, 350, 08025, Barcelona, Spain

    Andrea Gallioli, Alessandro Uleri, Josep Maria Gaya, Angelo Territo, Julia Aumatell, Paolo Verri, Giuseppe Basile, Sofia Fontanet, Alessandro Tedde, Pietro Diana, Edgar Suquilanda, Joan Palou & Alberto Breda

  2. Department of Pathology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Ferran Algaba

Authors
  1. Andrea Gallioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessandro Uleri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Josep Maria Gaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Angelo Territo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Julia Aumatell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paolo Verri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Giuseppe Basile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sofia Fontanet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Alessandro Tedde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Pietro Diana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Edgar Suquilanda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Ferran Algaba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Joan Palou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Alberto Breda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AG: manuscript writing/editing, AU: data analysis, data collection or management, manuscript writing/editing, JMG: manuscript writing/editing, AT: manuscript writing/editing, JA: data collection or management, PV: data collection or management, GB: data collection or management, SF: data collection or management, AT: data collection or management, PD: data collection or management, ES: data collection or management, FA: data collection or management, JP: protocol/project development, AB: protocol/project development, manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Uleri.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

All analysis performed involving human participants were in accordance with 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Consent to participate

All patients signed an informed consent agreeing to supply their anonymous information for research purposes.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 94 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 113 KB)

Supplementary file3 (MP4 442134 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gallioli, A., Uleri, A., Gaya, J.M. et al. Initial experience of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with Hugo™ RAS system: implications for surgical setting. World J Urol 41, 1085–1091 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04336-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04336-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation