Major colorectal surgery with Hugo™ RAS: initial experience of a German center and a review of the literature.

The recently introduced Hugo RAS robotic platform has mostly been used for well standardized urologic and gynaecologic procedures. Experience with this new system in general surgery and especially in major colorectal surgery is very limited. This is a retrospective series of the first 25 consecutive non-selected colorectal surgeries performed at a single German center. The lessons learned from our initial experience are presented along with a systematic review of the currently available literature on this topic. Ten sigmoid and seven rectal resections, four right and one left hemicolectomies, two Hartmann's reversals and an abdominoperineal resection were performed in 14 women and 11 men at the median age of 66 years for 12 benign findings and 13 malignancies. All procedures were performed using four robotic ports and a single 12 mm assistant port. Median docking, console and total operative times were 12, 170 and 270 min. Median blood loss was < 100 ml, and median stay was 8 days. The literature review identified five case series with a total of 23 colorectal procedures: 9 right and 1 left hemicolectomies, 5 ileocaecal, and 4 rectal and 4 sigmoid resections. Results corresponded to ours despite variations in setup used by different authors. A wide spectrum of major colorectal surgery can be safely and effectively performed with the Hugo RAS, even in a cohort of non-selected patients. Ongoing software and hardware upgrade, introduction of robotic energy devices and increasing surgical experience are expected to facilitate procedures and reduce duration of surgery.

Use of HugoTM RAS in General Surgery: The First 70 Cases at a German Centre and a Systematic Review of the Literature.

Introduction: The versatile open modular design of the newly introduced robotic platform HugoTM RAS is expected to allow its rapid spread in general surgery. However, the system is not yet approved for use in oesophageal and HPB-surgery and is not licensed worldwide. The aim of this work was to review the current spectrum of general surgical procedures that may be feasibly and safely performed with Hugo. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our own series and performed a systematic review of all the published reports of general surgical procedures performed with this system in the literature. Results: Seventy patients underwent general surgery with Hugo at our institution, and another 99 patients were reported in the literature. The most common procedures were colorectal (n = 55); cholecystectomy (n = 44); repair of groin, ventral and hiatal hernias (n = 34); upper GI (n = 28); adrenalectomy (n = 6); and spleen cyst deroofing (n = 2). No device-related complications were reported. Arm collisions and technical problems were rare. The docking and console times improved in all series. The port positions and robotic arm configurations varied among authors and depended on the surgical indication, patient characteristics and surgeon's preference. Conclusions: A wide spectrum of general surgical procedures has been safely and effectively performed with the Hugo RAS, even by robotically inexperienced teams with a limited choice of instruments. Technical improvements to the system and the introduction of robotic energy devices may help Hugo evolve to a vital alternative to established robotic systems.

Safety and Feasibility of Cholecystectomy with the HugoTM RAS: Proof of Setup Guides and First-In-Human German Experience.

Introduction: The Hugo RAS robotic platform by Medtronic was recently certified for human use in Europe. Several centers have gained initial experience with this system in urology and gynecology. However, few data about its feasibility and safety in general surgery have been published. Methods: The first-in-human surgical procedures with the Hugo RAS in Germany were performed at our hospital in February 2023. We report our early experience with robotic cholecystectomy using this new platform. The primary aim was to test the setup guides of the manufacturer and to evaluate the safety and feasibility of Hugo RAS for this procedure. Results: A modified setup with two 11-mm ports and two 8-mm ports without an assistant port was used in 14 consecutive cases. A 30° or a 0° camera, a bipolar grasper or a Maryland on the left arm, a monopolar scissors on the right arm, and a double-fenestrated grasper on the additional arm were mounted. Clip application and gallbladder extraction were performed by the bedside assistant through the right arm 11-mm port. There were no complications, no adverse events, and no conversions. Arm collisions were reduced through slight corrections in trocar positions. Conclusion: Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy with the Hugo RAS was safe and feasible. The modularity of robotic arms allows individual setup modifications which may be of advantage for patients and surgeons.

The article presents technical details and results of the first 14 robotically assisted gallbladder removals performed in Germany with the use of a new-generation surgical robot named Hugo RAS. Setup and configurations of the platform for this type of surgical procedure recommended by the manufacturer were modified by the authors to achieve optimal results. The procedures were performed safely and without complications. Advantages and disadvantages of the Hugo RAS robotic platform for its use in visceral surgery are discussed.

Is surgery for serous cystic neoplasms of the pancreas still indicated? Sixteen years of experience at a high-volume center.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines discourage surgery for serous cystic neoplasms (SCN) of the pancreas, because of their benign character, slow growth, and excellent prognosis. Nevertheless, SCN continue to contribute up to 30% of resected cystic pancreatic lesions worldwide. METHODS: Spectrum of indications and outcomes of surgery were analysed in a retrospective series of 133 SCN at a single high-volume center in Germany between 2004 and 2019. RESULTS: Relevant symptoms justified surgery in 60% of patients with SCN, while 40% underwent surgery because of preoperative diagnostic uncertainty about suspected malignancy. There were 4 malignant SCN (3%). Ninety-day mortality was 0.75%, major morbidity - 15%, 10-year survival - 95%. Risks of malignant transformation and of postoperative mortality were similarly low. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery is reasonable and safe for symptomatic patients with SCN. Preoperative diagnostic uncertainty is the main reason for futile resections of benign asymptomatic SCN. Conservative management with close initial surveillance should be the first choice for this population. Surgery for supposed SCN without symptoms is justified only in carefully selected patients with suspected malignancy.