Narasimhan Ragavan1, Shivaraj Bharathkumar2, Pradeep Chirravur3, Sindhu Sankaran2, Alex Mottrie4,5. 1. Department of Urology, The Tamil Nadu Dr MGR Medical University, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, India. 2. Department of Urology and Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, India. 3. Department of Anaesthesiology, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, India. 4. Department of Urology, Orsi Academy, Ghent, Belgium. 5. OLV Hospital, Aalst, Belgium.
Abstract
Background: The Hugo RAS is a newly launched robotic system for clinical use. This article provides the initial experience of the authors using Hugo RAS in urologic procedures. Methodology: Patients undergoing major urologic procedures, including nephrectomy and prostatectomy, were included in this prospective clinical trial. Institutional ethical approval was obtained, and patients were counseled preoperatively with informed consent. Both intraoperative and postoperative data were carefully recorded. Results: A total of seven patients were included in this initial study. This includes radical prostatectomy (n = 3), simple prostatectomy (n = 1), radical nephrectomy (n = 1), and simple nephrectomy (n = 2). The total operative time, port placement time, time to dock the ports, blood loss and length of hospital stay, and 30-day morbidity and mortality were recorded. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications up to 1 month follow-up. Conclusion: From the early experience with the Hugo RAS™ platform, it appears to be a safe robotic platform for major urologic procedures and is a good addition to the existing arsenal of surgical robots.
Background: The Hugo RAS is a newly launched robotic system for clinical use. This article provides the initial experience of the authors using Hugo RAS in urologic procedures. Methodology: Patients undergoing major urologic procedures, including nephrectomy and prostatectomy, were included in this prospective clinical trial. Institutional ethical approval was obtained, and patients were counseled preoperatively with informed consent. Both intraoperative and postoperative data were carefully recorded. Results: A total of seven patients were included in this initial study. This includes radical prostatectomy (n = 3), simple prostatectomy (n = 1), radical nephrectomy (n = 1), and simple nephrectomy (n = 2). The total operative time, port placement time, time to dock the ports, blood loss and length of hospital stay, and 30-day morbidity and mortality were recorded. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications up to 1 month follow-up. Conclusion: From the early experience with the Hugo RAS™ platform, it appears to be a safe robotic platform for major urologic procedures and is a good addition to the existing arsenal of surgical robots.