Robot-Assisted Sacropexy with the Novel HUGO Robot-Assisted Surgery System: Initial Experience and Surgical Setup at a Tertiary Referral Robotic Center.

Journal: Journal of endourology
Published Date:

Abstract

Robotic sacropexy (RSC) emerged in the last years as a valid alternative to the laparoscopic technique. However, the robotic approach is still limited by platform availability and concerns about cost-effectiveness. Recently, new robotic platforms joined the market, lowering the costs and offering the possibility to expand the robotic approach. The aim of our study was to demonstrate the technical feasibility and safety of the procedure with this new platform along with the description of our surgical setting. We reported data on the first five consecutive patients who underwent RSC at Onze Lieve Vrouw Hospital (Aalst, Belgium), performed with the novel HUGO™ Robot-Assisted Surgery (RAS) System. The platform consists of four fully independent carts, an open console, and a system tower equipped for both laparoscopic and robotic surgery. We collected patients' characteristics, intraoperative data, intraoperative complications, and clashes of instruments. All procedures were completed according to the same surgical setting and technique. No need for conversion to open/laparoscopic surgery and/or for additional port placement was required. No intraoperative complications, instrument clashes, or system failure that compromised the surgery's completion were recorded. Median interquartile range docking, operative, and console time were 8 (6-9), 130 (115-165), and 80 (80-115) minutes, respectively. This series represents the first worldwide report of a robot-assisted sacropexy executed with the novel HUGO RAS System. Awaiting future investigation, this preliminary experience provides relevant data in terms of operative room settings and perioperative outcomes that might be helpful for future adopters of this platform.

Authors

  • Angelo Mottaran
    Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna.
  • Carlo Andrea Bravi
    Department of Urology, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwziekenhuis, Aalst, Belgium; ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium; Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
  • Luca Sarchi
    Department of Urology, Ospedale Policlinico e Nuovo Ospedale Civile S. Agostino Estense Modena, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. Electronic address: 279948@studenti.unimore.it.
  • Marco Paciotti
    Department of Urology, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwziekenhuis Hospital, Aalst, Belgium; ORSI Academy, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
  • Luigi Nocera
    Department of Urology, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwziekenhuis Hospital, Aalst, Belgium; ORSI Academy, Ghent, Belgium; Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
  • Adele Piro
    ORSI Academy, Ghent, Belgium.
  • Pietro Piazza
    Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
  • Pieter De Backer
    ORSI Academy Melle Belgium.
  • Rui Farinha
    Department of Urology, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwziekenhuis, Aalst, Belgium; ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium.
  • Ruben De Groote
    ORSI Academy Melle Belgium.
  • Geert De Naeyer
    General Surgery and Urology. OLV Hospital. Belgium.
  • Alexandre Mottrie
    ORSI Academy Melle Belgium.