Franco A, Ditonno F, Manfredi C, Johnson A, Mamgain A, Feldman-Schultz O, et al. Robot-assisted surgery in the field of urology: the most pioneering approaches 2015–2023. Res Rep Urol. 2023; 15:453–70.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Singh I. Robotics in urological surgery: review of current status and maneuverability, and comparison of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopy. Comput Aided Surg. 2011;16:38–45.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Costello AJ. Considering the role of radical prostatectomy in 21st century prostate cancer care. Nat Rev Urol. 2020;17:177–88.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, Jung JH, Murphy D, Frydenberg M. Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;12:CD009625.

Carbonara U, Srinath M, Crocerossa F, Ferro M, Cantiello F, Lucarelli G, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: an evidence-based analysis of comparative outcomes. World J Urol. 2021;39:3721–32.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ahmed K, Ibrahim A, Wang TT, Khan N, Challacombe B, Khan MS, et al. Assessing the cost effectiveness of robotics in urological surgery – a systematic review. BJU Int. 2012;110:1544–56.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Menon M. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: is the dust settling? Eur Urol. 2011;59:7–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Oberlin DT, Flum AS, Lai JD, Meeks JJ. The effect of minimally invasive prostatectomy on practice patterns of American urologists. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2016;34:255.e1–255.e5.

Google Scholar 

Veccia A, Malandra S, Montanaro F, Pettenuzzo G, DE Marco V, Antonelli A. Mirrored port placement for robotic radical prostatectomy with the Hugo RAS™ System: initial experience. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2024;76:235–40.

Prata F, Ragusa A, Tempesta C, Iannuzzi A, Tedesco F, Cacciatore L, et al. State of the art in robotic surgery with hugo RAS system: feasibility, safety and clinical applications. J Personal Med. 2023;13:1233.

Article  Google Scholar 

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;n71.

First procedure in the world with medtronic HugoTM robotic-assisted surgery system performed at Clínica Santa Maria in Chile. https://news.medtronic.com/2021-06-22-First-Procedure-in-the-World-with-Medtronic-Hugo-TM-Robotic-Assisted-Surgery-System-Performed-at-Clinica-Santa-Maria-in-Chile#:~:text=First%20Procedure%20in%20the%20World,in%20Chile%20%2D%20Jun%2022%2C%202021

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Sacco E, Prayer‐Galetti T, Pinto F, Fracalanza S, Betto G, Pagano F, et al. Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: incidence by definition, risk factors and temporal trend in a large series with a long‐term follow‐up. BJU Int. 2006;97:1234–41.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

McGrath S, Zhao X, Steele R, Thombs BD, Benedetti A, Levis B, et al. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from commonly reported quantiles in meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2020;29:2520–37.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:13.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Ades AE, Lu G, Higgins JPT. The interpretation of random-effects meta-analysis in decision models. Med Decis Mak. 2005;25:646–54.

Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;i4919.

McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk‐of‐bias VISualization (robvis): an R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk‐of‐bias assessments. Res Synth Methods. 2021;12:55–61.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;j4008.

Brime Menendez R. et al. Da Vinci vs. Hugo RAS for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparative single-center study. World J Urol. 2024;42:336.

Antonelli A, Veccia A, Malandra S, Rizzetto R, De Marco V, Baielli A, et al. Intraoperative performance of DaVinci versus hugo RAS during radical prostatectomy: focus on timing, malfunctioning, complications, and user satisfaction in 100 consecutive cases (the COMPAR-P Trial). Eur Urol Open Sci. 2024;63:104–12.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Antonelli A. et al. Outcomes of da Vinci® versus Hugo RAS® radical prostatectomy: focus on postoperative course, pathological findings, and patients’ health-related quality of life after 100 consecutive cases (the COMPAR-P prospective trial). Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2024;76:596–605.

Olsen RG, Karas V, Bjerrum F, Konge L, Stroomberg HV, Dagnæs-Hansen JA, et al. Skills transfer from the DaVinci® system to the HugoTM RAS system. Int Urol Nephrol. 2024;56:389–97.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gandi C, Marino F, Totaro A, Scarciglia E, Bellavia F, Bientinesi R, et al. Perioperative outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy with hugoTM RAS versus daVinci surgical platform: propensity score-matched comparative analysis. J Clin Med. 2024;13.

Ragavan N, Bharathkumar S, Chirravur P, Sankaran S. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy utilizing hugo RAS platform: initial experience. J Endourol. 2023;37:147–50.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bravi CA, Balestrazzi E, De Loof M, Rebuffo S, Piramide F, Mottaran A, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed with different robotic platforms: first comparative evidence between Da Vinci and HUGO robot-assisted surgery robots. Eur Urol Focus. 2024;10:107–14.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ou HC, Marian L, Li CC, Juan YS, Tung MC, Shih HJ, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy by the Hugo robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) system and the da vinci system: a comparison between the two platforms. Cancers. 2024;16.

Bravi CA, Paciotti M, Balestrazzi E, Piro A, Piramide F, Peraire M, et al. Outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with the Hugo RAS surgical system: initial experience at a high-volume robotic center. Eur Urol Focus. 2023;9:642–4.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gallioli A, Uleri A, Gaya JM, Territo A, Aumatell J, Verri P, et al. Initial experience of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with HugoTM RAS system: implications for surgical setting. World J Urol. 2023;41:1085–91.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Mottaran A, Paciotti M, Bravi CA, Sarchi L, Nocera L, Piro A, et al. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy with the novel HUGOTM RAS System: feasibility, setting, and perioperative outcomes. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2023;75.

Ragavan N, Bharathkumar S, Chirravur P, Sankaran S, Mottrie A. Evaluation of Hugo RAS system in major urologic surgery: our initial experience. J Endourol. 2022;36:1029–35.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Raffaelli M, Gallucci P, Voloudakis N, Pennestrì F, De Cicco R, Arcuri G, et al. The new robotic platform HugoTM RAS for lateral transabdominal adrenalectomy: a first world report of a series of five cases. Updates Surg. 2023;75:217–25.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Soputro NA, Olivares R. Current urological applications of the HugoTM RAS system. World J Urol. 2023;41:2555–61.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Totaro A, Campetella M, Bientinesi R, Gandi C, Palermo G, Russo A, et al. The new surgical robotic platform HUGO TM RAS: System description and docking settings for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urol J. 2022;89:603–9.

Article  Google Scholar 

Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol. 2002;167:1681–6.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Briganti A, Chun FKH, Salonia A, Gallina A, Zanni G, Scattoni V, et al. Critical assessment of ideal nodal yield at pelvic lymphadenectomy to accurately diagnose prostate cancer nodal metastasis in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2007;69:147–51.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Anceschi U, Morelli M, Flammia RS, Brassetti A, Dell’oglio P, Galfano A, et al. Predictors of trainees’ proficiency during the learning curve of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at high-volume institutions: results from a multicentric series. Cent Eur J Urol. 2023;76:38–43.

Google Scholar 

Sighinolfi MC, Messina LA, Stocco M, Moscovas MC, Pelliccia P, Palma A, et al. Cost analysis of new robotic competitors: a comparison of direct costs for initial hospital stay between Da Vinci and Hugo RAS for radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg. 2024;18:251.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar