Josep M Gaya, Camille Berquin, Giuseppe Basile, Alessio Pecoraro, Andrea Gallioli, Isabel Sanz Gomez, Paula Izquierdo, Angelo Territo, Pavel Gavrilov, Joan Palou, Antonio Rosales, Alberto Breda
{"title":"机器人辅助视频内窥镜腹股沟淋巴结切除术与Hugo™RAS系统:手术设置和初步经验。","authors":"Josep M Gaya, Camille Berquin, Giuseppe Basile, Alessio Pecoraro, Andrea Gallioli, Isabel Sanz Gomez, Paula Izquierdo, Angelo Territo, Pavel Gavrilov, Joan Palou, Antonio Rosales, Alberto Breda","doi":"10.23736/S2724-6051.24.06044-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Hugo<sup>™</sup> RAS system is gaining prominence in the field of urologic robotic surgery. To date, no study has described robot-assisted video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (RAVEIL) using this system. Therefore, the aim of the study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the procedure, focusing on surgical set-up and preliminary results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of seven procedures in five patients with penile cancer were prospectively included. Baseline patient characteristics, intra- and post-operative surgical outcomes were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, four patients (80%) had negative clinical N-staging (cN0). Median (IQR) operative time was 90 (85-97.5) minutes, with a median (IQR) of 8 (8-9) lymph node yield per procedure. One post-operative complication, a lymphocele requiring percutaneous drainage (Clavien-Dindo 3a), was reported. Median (IQR) hospital stay was 3 (3-3.5) days and the median (IQR) time to drain removal was 8 (6.5-10) days.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the first case series demonstrating the safety and feasibility of RAVEIL using the Hugo<sup>™</sup> RAS system. The surgical configuration described may serve as a valuable reference standard for RAVEIL with this robotic platform and help novel adopters in implementing the platform in another surgical scenario.</p>","PeriodicalId":53228,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Urology and Nephrology","volume":"77 1","pages":"79-84"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robot-assisted video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy with the Hugo™ RAS System: surgical set-up and initial experience.\",\"authors\":\"Josep M Gaya, Camille Berquin, Giuseppe Basile, Alessio Pecoraro, Andrea Gallioli, Isabel Sanz Gomez, Paula Izquierdo, Angelo Territo, Pavel Gavrilov, Joan Palou, Antonio Rosales, Alberto Breda\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S2724-6051.24.06044-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Hugo<sup>™</sup> RAS system is gaining prominence in the field of urologic robotic surgery. To date, no study has described robot-assisted video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (RAVEIL) using this system. Therefore, the aim of the study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the procedure, focusing on surgical set-up and preliminary results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of seven procedures in five patients with penile cancer were prospectively included. Baseline patient characteristics, intra- and post-operative surgical outcomes were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, four patients (80%) had negative clinical N-staging (cN0). Median (IQR) operative time was 90 (85-97.5) minutes, with a median (IQR) of 8 (8-9) lymph node yield per procedure. One post-operative complication, a lymphocele requiring percutaneous drainage (Clavien-Dindo 3a), was reported. Median (IQR) hospital stay was 3 (3-3.5) days and the median (IQR) time to drain removal was 8 (6.5-10) days.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the first case series demonstrating the safety and feasibility of RAVEIL using the Hugo<sup>™</sup> RAS system. The surgical configuration described may serve as a valuable reference standard for RAVEIL with this robotic platform and help novel adopters in implementing the platform in another surgical scenario.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53228,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva Urology and Nephrology\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"79-84\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva Urology and Nephrology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.24.06044-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Urology and Nephrology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.24.06044-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Robot-assisted video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy with the Hugo™ RAS System: surgical set-up and initial experience.
Background: The Hugo™ RAS system is gaining prominence in the field of urologic robotic surgery. To date, no study has described robot-assisted video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (RAVEIL) using this system. Therefore, the aim of the study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the procedure, focusing on surgical set-up and preliminary results.
Methods: A total of seven procedures in five patients with penile cancer were prospectively included. Baseline patient characteristics, intra- and post-operative surgical outcomes were recorded.
Results: Overall, four patients (80%) had negative clinical N-staging (cN0). Median (IQR) operative time was 90 (85-97.5) minutes, with a median (IQR) of 8 (8-9) lymph node yield per procedure. One post-operative complication, a lymphocele requiring percutaneous drainage (Clavien-Dindo 3a), was reported. Median (IQR) hospital stay was 3 (3-3.5) days and the median (IQR) time to drain removal was 8 (6.5-10) days.
Conclusions: This is the first case series demonstrating the safety and feasibility of RAVEIL using the Hugo™ RAS system. The surgical configuration described may serve as a valuable reference standard for RAVEIL with this robotic platform and help novel adopters in implementing the platform in another surgical scenario.