Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty with HUGO™ Robotic System: Initial Experience and Optimal Surgical Set-Up at a Tertiary Referral Robotic Center.

Background: In February 2021 Medtronic® (Minneapolis, MN) launched the HUGO™ Robot-Assisted Surgery (RAS) System in the global market. The aim of the current study is to describe the first case series and the optimal setup of robot-assisted pyeloplasty procedure, performed with HUGO RAS system in a tertiary referral robotic center. Methods: Data from consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted pyeloplasty at Onze-Lieve-Vrouwziekenhuis Hospital (Aalst, Belgium) were recorded. Baseline characteristics, and perioperative and surgical outcomes were collected. Results: Overall, 10 robot-assisted pyeloplasties were performed (October 2022-September 2023). Based on our expertise, the following minor setting changes have been made, relative to the official setup guide: the endoscope port and, subsequently, the left and right-hand ports were positioned more laterally. Additionally, the reserve/4th port was placed more laterally and cranially, and adjusted the arm cart's tilt angle, reducing it from -30° to -15°. The median docking time was 8 (interquartile range [IQR]: 7.2-9.8) minutes, and the median active console time was 89.5 (80.0-95.8) minutes. No conversion to open/laparoscopic surgery or perioperative complications was encountered. A single technical problem was recorded in 1 (10%) procedure. Specifically, one arm was blocked, and the procedure was accomplished with three arms without compromising the procedure success. Conclusions: This study represents the first worldwide series of robot-assisted pyeloplasty performed with the HUGO RAS system and shows promising results. The procedure might be safely performed with this robotic platform achieving optimal perioperative outcomes.

Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Performed with Different Robotic Platforms: First Comparative Evidence Between Da Vinci and HUGO Robot-assisted Surgery Robots.

BACKGROUND: In the field of robotic surgery, there is a lack of comparative evidence on surgical and functional outcomes of different robotic platforms. OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes of patients receiving robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) at a high-volume robotic center with daVinci and HUGO robot-assisted surgery (RAS) surgical systems. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed the data of 542 patients undergoing RARP ± extended pelvic lymph node dissection at OLV hospital (Aalst, Belgium) between 2021 and 2023. All procedures were performed by six surgeons using daVinci or HUGO RAS robots; the use of one platform rather than the other did not follow any specific preference and/or indication. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Multivariable analyses investigated the association between robotic system (daVinci vs HUGO RAS) and surgical outcomes after adjustment for patient- and tumor-related factors. Urinary continence recovery was defined as the use of no/one safety pad. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 378 (70%) and 164 (30%) patients underwent RARP with daVinci and HUGO RAS surgical systems, respectively. Despite a higher rate of palpable disease in the HUGO RAS group (34% vs 25%), baseline characteristics did not differ between the groups (all p > 0.05). After adjusting for confounders, we did not find evidence of a difference between the groups with respect to operative time (estimate: 16.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -6.35, 39.78; p = 0.12), estimated blood loss (estimate: 3.12; 95% CI: -67.03, 73.27; p = 0.9), and postoperative Clavien-Dindo ≥2 complications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.66; 95% CI: 0.34, 8.15; p = 0.5). On final pathology, 55 (15%) and 20 (12%) men in, respectively, the daVinci and the HUGO RAS group had positive surgical margins (PSMs; p = 0.5). On multivariable analyses, we did not find evidence of an association between a robotic system and PSMs (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.56, 2.07; p = 0.8). Similarly, the odds of recovering continence did not differ between daVinci and HUGO RAS cases after both 1 mo (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.38; p = 0.4) and 3 mo (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.49, 2.79; p = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving RARP with daVinci or HUGO RAS surgical platforms, we did not find differences in surgical and functional outcomes between the robots. This may be a result of a standardized surgical technique that allowed surgeons to transfer their skills between robotic systems. Awaiting future investigations with longer follow-up, these results have important implications for patients, surgeons, and health care policymakers. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared surgical and functional outcomes of patients receiving robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with daVinci versus HUGO robot-assisted surgery (RAS) robots. The two platforms were able to achieve similar outcomes, suggesting that the introduction of HUGO RAS is safe and allows for optimal outcomes after radical prostatectomy.

What More Can We Ask of Robotics?

The future of robotics relies heavily on the ongoing synergy between robotic surgery and artificial intelligence. To unlock their full potential, we should address issues such as accessibility, education, data privacy, and ethics.

Transitioning from Da Vinci Si to Xi: assessing surgical outcomes at a high-volume robotic center.

PURPOSE: In the emerging field of robotics, only few studies investigated the transition between different robotic platforms in terms of surgical outcomes. We aimed at assessing surgical outcomes of patients receiving robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) at a high-volume robotic center during the transition from Si to Xi Da Vinci surgical systems. METHODS: We analyzed data of 1884 patients undergoing RARP (n = 1437, 76%) and RAPN (n = 447, 24%) at OLV hospital (Aalst, Belgium) between 2011 and 2021. For both procedures, we assessed operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and positive surgical margins. For RARP, we investigated length of catheterization and PSA persistence after surgery, whereas warm ischemia time, clampless surgery, and acute kidney injury (AKI) were assessed for RAPN. Multivariable analyses (MVA) investigated the association between robotic platform (Si vs. Xi) and surgical outcomes after adjustment for patient- and tumor-related factors. RESULTS: A total of 975 (68%) and 462 (32%) patients underwent RARP performed with the Si vs. Xi surgical system, respectively. Baseline characteristics did not differ between the groups. On MVA, we did not find evidence of a difference between the groups with respect to operative time (estimate: 1.07) or estimated blood loss (estimate: 32.39; both p > 0.05). Median (interquartile range [IQR]) length of stay was 6 (3, 6) and 4 (3, 5) days in the Si vs. Xi group, respectively (p < 0.0001). On MVA, men treated with the Xi vs. Si robot had lower odds of PSM (Odds ratio [OR]: 0.58; p = 0.014). A total of 184 (41%) and 263 (59%) patients received RAPN with the Si and Xi robotic system, respectively. Baseline characteristics, including demographics, functional data, and tumor-related features did not differ between the groups. On MVA, operative time was longer in the Xi vs. Si group (estimate: 30.54; p = 0.006). Patients treated with the Xi vs. Si system had higher probability of undergoing a clampless procedure (OR: 2.56; p = 0.001), whereas the risk of AKI did not differ between the groups (OR: 1.25; p = 0.4). On MVA, patients operated with the Xi robot had shorter length of stay as compared to the Si group (estimate: - 0.86; p = 0.003), whereas we did not find evidence of an association between robotic system and PSM (OR: 1.55; p = 0.3). CONCLUSION: We found that the Xi robot allowed for improvements in peri-operative outcomes as compared to the Si platform, with lower rate of positive margins for RARP and higher rate of off-clamp procedures for RAPN. Hospital stay was also shorter for patients operated with the Xi vs. Si robot, especially after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Awaiting future investigations-in particular, cost analyses-these results have important implications for patients, surgeons, and healthcare policymakers.

A comparative analysis of the HUGOTM robot-assisted surgery system and the Da Vinci® Xi surgical system for robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse treatment.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the outcomes of Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) performed using the novel HUGOTM Robot-Assisted Surgery (RAS) System with the Da Vinci® Xi surgical system. METHODS: Data from 38 women undergoing RASC for a ≥ 2-grade pelvic organ prolapse were collected (2021-2023). RESULTS: Overall, 23 (60.5%) and 15 (39.5%) procedures were performed using the DaVinci® Xi and the HUGOTM RAS system, respectively. The median total operative time was 123 (IQR:106.5-140.5) minutes for the DaVinci® Xi versus 120 (IQR:120-146) minutes for the HUGOTM RAS cases (p = 0.5). No conversion to open/laparoscopic surgery, perioperative complications, or system failures occurred. No differences were recorded according to day of catheter removal and length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first worldwide comparison of RASC executed using the HUGOTM RAS versus the Da Vinci® Xi System. Our data suggest that RASC might be performed with both robotic platforms with similar perioperative outcomes.

Initial Experience of Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy with Hugo Robot-Assisted Surgery System: Step-by-Step Description of Two Different Techniques.

Introduction: There are only a few clinical data on nononcologic procedures performed with the new Hugo™ robot-assisted surgery (RAS) system. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) is a minimally invasive treatment option for benign prostatic hyperplasia, and it demonstrated equal early functional and better perioperative outcomes as compared with open simple prostatectomy. In this article, we reported the first large series of RASP performed with Hugo RAS system. Methods: This Supplementary Video S1 is a step-by-step description of two different techniques for RASP. We analyzed the data of 20 consecutive patients who underwent RASP at OLV Hospital (Belgium) between February 2022 and March 2023. Patients baseline characteristics, perioperative and pathologic, and 1-month postoperative outcomes were reported, using the median (interquartile range [IQR]) and frequencies, as appropriate. Results: Median age (IQR) and preoperative prostate specific antigen (PSA) were 72 (67-76) years, and 7.7 (5.0-13.4) ng/mL, respectively. A total of 11 patients experienced an episode of preoperative acute urinary retention, and 8 men had an indwelling bladder catheter at the time of the surgery. No intraoperative complication occurred, and there was no need for conversion to open surgery. Median operative and console time were 165 (121-180) and 125 (101-148) minutes. On the first postoperative day the urethral catheter was removed in 80% of the patients. Median length of stay was 3 (3-4) days. Three patients had minor postoperative complications. On final pathology report, median prostate volume was 120 (101-154) g. On postoperative uroflowmetry, median Qmax and postvoid residual were 16 (13-26) mL/s and 15 (0-34) mL, respectively. Conclusions: This series represents the first report of surgical outcomes of RASP executed with Hugo RAS system. Awaiting study with longer follow-up, our study suggests that Hugo RAS has multiple applications, and it can ensure optimal outcomes in nononcologic procedures.

Urology apps: overview of current types and use.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years numerous applications have been developed with different purposes, aimed both at simplifying the lives of doctors and patients also within the urological field. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In January 2020 we conducted a search in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. RESULTS: A total of 521 apps were reviewed, an increase of 8 times as compared to the last complete available review of eight years ago. Most of the urological apps are geared towards the patient and provide information and services to improve the understanding and treatment of different diseases. Some of these apps also get the patient directly in touch with healthcare staff allowing for an improvement in doctor-patient communication. CONCLUSIONS: Although the usefulness of many of these tools is undoubted, the problem of scientific validation, content control and privacy are not yet solved.