To date, robotic surgery in urology is well established all over the world. The newest platform on the market is the HUGO™ RAS system, developed by Medtronic. In this paper we provide a brief description of the system and describe our system set-up and surgical approach with this new platform in our initial experience of robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) series. After an official training, seven consecutive patients affected by localized prostate cancer underwent RARP with HUGO^TM RAS system at our Institution. A description of our surgical approach and docking setup is provided. Docking and console times were reported for all precedures together with main suggestions to facilitate the use of this new system at the beginning of the experience. Our operating room setup has shown to be safe, effective, and easy replicable. During our series, operative times appeared to be easy reproducible and comparable to those obtained with daVinci system. No major system faults and conflicts between robotic arms were observed after the first procedure. Our surgical approach and system configuration for performing RARP with the new HUGO™ RAS system appears to be safe, efficient and easy reproducible.

Background/Objectives: to assess surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed using the novel Hugo™ RAS system. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines, using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases. Eligible papers included studies involving adult males undergoing RARP with the Hugo™ RAS platform, with at least ten patients analyzed. The pooled analysis was performed using a random-effect model. Results: Quantitative analysis was conducted on 12 studies including 579 patients. The pooled median docking time, console time, and operative time were 11 min (95% CI 7.95–14.50; I² = 98.4%, ten studies), 142 min (95% CI 119.74–164.68; I² = 96.5%, seven studies), and 176 min (95% CI 148.33–203.76; I² = 96.3%, seven studies), respectively. The pooled median estimated blood loss was 223 mL (95% CI 166.75–280.17; I² = 96.5%, eleven studies). The pooled median length of hospital stay and time to catheter removal were 2.8 days (95% CI 1.67–3.89; I² = 100%, ten studies) and 8.3 days (95% CI 5.53–11.09; I² = 100%, eight studies), respectively. The pooled rate of postoperative CD ≥ 2 complications was 4.1% (95% CI 1–8.5; I² = 63.6%, eleven studies). The pooled rate of positive surgical margins and undetectable postoperative PSA were 20% (95% CI 12.6–28.5; I² = 71.5%, nine studies) and 94.2% (95% CI 87.7–98.6; I² = 48.9%, three studies), respectively. At three months, a pooled rate of social continence of 81.9% (95% CI 73.8–88.9; I² = 66.7%, seven studies) was found. Erectile function at six months was 31% in one study. Conclusions: despite the preliminary nature of the evidence, this systematic review and pooled analysis underscores the feasibility, safety, and reproducibility of the Hugo™ RAS system in the context of RARP.

Background: Robotic-assisted surgery is the gold standard for performing radical prostatectomy (RARP), with new robotic devices such as Hugo^TM RAS gaining prominence worldwide. Objective: We report the surgical, perioperative, and early postoperative outcomes of RARP using Hugo^TM RAS. Design, setting, and participants: Between April 2022 and October 2023, we performed 132 procedures using the Montsouris technique with a four-robotic-arm configuration in patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer (PCa). Outcome measures: We collected intraoperative and perioperative data during hospitalization, along with follow-up data at predefined postoperative intervals of 3 and 6 months. Results and limitations: Lymphadenectomy was performed in 25 procedures, with a bilateral nerve-sparing technique in 33 and a monolateral nerve-sparing technique in 33 cases. The mean total surgery time was 242 (±57) min, the mean console time was 124 (±48) min, and the mean docking time was 10 (±2) min. We identified 17 system errors related to robotic arm failures, 9 robotic instrument breakdowns, and 8 significant conflicts between robotic arms. One post-operative complication was classified as Clavien–Dindo 3b. None of the adverse events, whether singular or combined, increased the operative time. Positive margins (pR1) were found in 54 (40.9%) histological specimens, 37 (28.0%) of which were clinically significant. At 3 and 6 months post-surgery, the PSA levels were undetectable in 94.6% and 92.1% of patients, respectively. Social urinary continence was regained in 86% after 6 months. Limitations of our study include its observational monocentric case-series design and the short follow-up data for functional and oncological outcomes. Conclusions: Our initial experience highlights the reliability of the Hugo^TM RAS system in performing RARP. Additionally, we also list problems and solutions found in our daily work.

Background/Objectives: There is an urgent need for comparative analyses of the intraoperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of different surgical robotic platforms. We aimed to compare the outcomes of RARP performed at a tertiary referral robotic centre with the novel Hugo^TM RAS system with those performed with a daVinci surgical system, which is considered the reference standard. Methods: We analysed the data of 400 patients undergoing RARP ± pelvic lymph node dissection between 2021 and 2023, using propensity score (PS) matching to correct for treatment selection bias. All procedures were performed by three surgeons with Hugo^TM RAS or daVinci. Results: The PS-matched cohort included 198 patients with 99 matched pairs, balanced for all covariates. Positive surgical margins (PSMs) were found in 22.2% and 25.3% (p = 0.616) of patients, respectively, in the Hugo^TM RAS and daVinci groups. No significant differences were found for other important perioperative outcomes, including median (1st–3rd q) operative time (170 (147.5–195.5) vs. 166 (154–202.5) min; p = 0.540), median (1st–3rd q) estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 (100–150) vs. 100 (100–150) ml; p = 0.834), Clavien–Dindo (CD) ≥ 2 complications (3% vs. 4%; p = 0.498), and social continence at 3 months (73.7% vs. 74.7%; p = 0.353). In multiple analyses, no associations were found between surgical outcomes (PSM, length of PSM, operative time, EBL, length of catheterization, length of hospital stay, social continence at three months after surgery, and CD ≥ 2 complications) and the robotic platform. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that Hugo^TM RAS enables surgeons to safely and effectively transfer the level of proficiency they reached during their previous experience with the daVinci systems.