Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Mar 30;17(7):1164.
doi: 10.3390/cancers17071164.

Colorectal Cancer Outcomes of Robotic Surgery Using the Hugo™ RAS System: The First Worldwide Comparative Study of Robotic Surgery and Laparoscopy

Giacomo Calini  1   2 , Stefano Cardelli  1   2 , Ioana Diana Alexa  2 , Francesca Andreotti  2 , Michele Giorgini  2 , Nicola Maria Greco  2 , Fiorella Agama  2 , Alice Gori  1   2 , Dajana Cuicchi  1 , Gilberto Poggioli  1   2 , Matteo Rottoli  1   2
Affiliations

Colorectal Cancer Outcomes of Robotic Surgery Using the Hugo™ RAS System: The First Worldwide Comparative Study of Robotic Surgery and Laparoscopy

Giacomo Calini et al. Cancers (Basel). .

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The aim of the study was to compare the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) performed using laparoscopy or using the Medtronic Hugo™ Robotic-Assisted Surgery (RAS) system. Methods: This is a retrospective comparative single-center study of consecutive minimally invasive surgeries for CRC performed by two colorectal surgeons with extensive laparoscopic experience at the beginning of their robotic expertise. Patients were not selected for the surgical approach, but waiting lists and operating room availability determined whether the patients were in the robotic group or the laparoscopic group. The primary outcome was to compare 30-day postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and the Complication Comprehensive Index (CCI). The secondary outcomes included operating times, conversion rates, intraoperative complications, length of hospital stays (LOS), readmission rates, and short-term oncologic outcomes, such as the R0 resection, the number of lymph nodes harvested, the total mesorectal excision (TME) quality, and the circumferential resection margin (CRM). Results: Of the 109 patients, 52 underwent robotic and 57 laparoscopic CRC surgery. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were similar in the two groups. There was no significant difference between the robotic and the laparoscopic groups regarding postoperative complications, the Clavien-Dindo classification, and the CCI. They also had similar operating times, conversion rates, intraoperative complications, LOSs, readmission rates, and short-term oncologic outcomes (the lymph nodes harvested, the R0 resection, TME quality, and CRM status). Conclusions: This study reports the largest cohort of CRC surgery performed using the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS system and is the first comparative study with laparoscopy. The perioperative and oncologic outcomes were similar, demonstrating that the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS system is safe and feasible for CRC as compared to laparoscopic surgery, even at the beginning of the robotic experience.

Keywords: Medtronic Hugo-RAS; colorectal cancer; comparative study; laparoscopic; robotic surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Rottoli Matteo declares the following conflict of interest: the Medtronic Advisory Board. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Bray F., Laversanne M., Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R.L., Soerjomataram I., Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2024;74:229–263. doi: 10.3322/caac.21834. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vogel J.D., Felder S.I., Bhama A.R., Hawkins A.T., Langenfeld S.J., Shaffer V.O., Thorsen A.J., Weiser M.R., Chang G.J., Lightner A.L., et al. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Colon Cancer. Dis. Colon. Rectum. 2022;65:148–177. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002323. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Glynne-Jones R., Wyrwicz L., Tiret E., Brown G., Rödel C., Cervantes A., Arnold D., ESMO Guidelines Committee Rectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2017;28((Suppl. S4)):iv22–iv40. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx224. Erratum in Ann. Oncol. 2018, 29 (Suppl. S4), iv263. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Krieg A., Kolbe E.W., Kaspari M., Krieg S., Loosen S.H., Roderburg C., Kostev K. Trends and outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery: A multicenter cross-sectional study of minimally invasive versus open techniques in Germany. Surg. Endosc. 2024;38:6338–6346. doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-11210-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Huang Z., Huang S., Huang Y., Luo R., Liang W. Comparison of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection: A systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front. Oncol. 2023;13:1273378. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1273378. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources