RESUMO
Robotic assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is a standard option for the treatment of bladder cancer. Currently, novel platforms are entering the market and the Hugo RAS (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) is a new system consisting of an open console with 3D-HD screen and a multi-modular fashion. Even if several series are already available for radical prostatectomy, to now a full description of RARC performed with Hugo RAS is still lacking. We report the first case of RARC with intracorporeal neobladder performed with the Hugo RAS-and another case of RARC with ureterostomy. Both patients were affected by MIBC. Case 1 was a 61-year-old patient without comorbidities (CCI 4), in which a Bordeaux ileal neobladder was scheduled after previous NAC. The second was the case of a 70-year-old one with CCI 7 and BMI 35; in this case, a ureterostomy was planned. Details of the robotic system: one 11 mm endoscope port was placed on the midline 2 cm above the umbilicus. Another two 8 mm robotic ports were symmetrically placed under vision on a transversal line-located 1 cm below the umbilicus. A third robotic port was positioned on the left side in a W configuration. All ports were located at least 9 cm between each other. Finally, two assistant ports were positioned in the right abdominal site. All arm-carts were parked 45-60 cm from the operative bed, before the docking process begins. Three arm-carts were parked on the left side, the assistant and the scrub nurse worked on the right side, while the energy tower stayed at the foot of the bed, according to the previous description of Hugo RAS robotic radical prostatectomy. The endoscope arm-cart is docked first, then the adjacent left carts are docked; finally, the surgeon's right-hand cart is docked from the right side of the bed. The docking angles and tilt we applied were: endoscope: 175°; minus 45°; surgeon left hand 140°; minus 30°; surgeon right hand 225°; minus 30°; fourth arm 125°; plus 15°. The instruments we used were those fitting our conventional four-instrument setup for RARC: monopolar shears, Maryland forceps, needle driver and Cadiere as the fourth arm. The procedures were completed without technical errors or technological failures-requiring a change in surgical strategy. Docking time was approximately 35 min; console time up to urethral dissection was 150 and 140 min in Case 1 and 2. The time for pelvic nodal dissection was approximately 37 min for both. The multi-modularity fashion of the Hugo RAS allowed an easy management of the bowel in Case 1; the absence of robotic staplers required the use of the laparoscopic ones, managed by an adjunctive assistant with room within the cart. In conclusion, RARC with the Hugo RAS is a feasible procedure able to reproduce all surgical steps without critical errors or complications requiring a change in surgical planning. Urinary diversion with intracorporeal reconstruction is feasible as well, with adequate preliminary outcomes.
