The Hugo RAS is a newly launched robotic system for clinical use. This paper provides the initial outcomes of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with Hugo RAS. It also attempts to compare the outcomes with a similar set of patients undergoing the procedure with the DaVinci robotic systems.
Patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for biopsy-proven prostate cancer were included in this study. Institutional ethical approval was obtained, and patients were counselled preoperatively with informed consent. Both intra-operative and post-operative data were carefully recorded for the Hugo RAS. Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy in DaVinci robotic systems during a similar period were chosen to compare the outcomes of the Hugo systems in a non-randomised study.
A total of 34 patients were included in this study wherein 17 radical prostatectomies were done in the Hugo RAS system and 17 in the DaVinci system were chosen to compare. The total operative time (210 vs 195 minutes) and dock time (190 vs 170 minutes) were similar between the two groups. An R0 or R1 resection and successful vesicourethral anastomosis were achieved in all cases. There were no notable intra-operative or post-operative complications in up to one-month follow-up.
The authors believe that the Hugo RASTM platform is a safe robotic system for pelvic procedures like radical prostatectomy, provides comparable results with existing robotic systems and is a good addition to the existing arsenal of surgical robots.
Journal of endourology. 2022 Oct 07 [Epub ahead of print]
Narasimhan Ragavan, Shivraj Barath Kumar, Pradeep Chirravur, Sindhu Sankaran
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd, Urology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India; ., Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, uro oncology, Ponekkara, P. O, Cochin, Kerala, India, 682041; ., Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd, Anesthesiology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India; ., Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd, Urology, 21, Greams lane, Greams road, Chennai, India, 600006; .
Go Beyond the Abstract and Read a Commentary by the Authors