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
Observational Study
. 2026 Jan 22;41(1):40.
doi: 10.1007/s00384-025-05063-w.

Functional, oncologic and clinical outcomes of robotic rectal resection using the Hugo™ RAS system versus laparoscopic surgery: A comparative cohort study

Antonio Arroyo  1   2 , Clara López-de-Lerma  3 , María Perea  3 , Ana Sánchez-Romero  3 , Francisco López-Rodríguez-Arias  3   4 , María-José Alcaide  3   4 , Mónica Serrano-Navidad  3 , Xavi Barber  5 , Elena Miranda  6 , José-Luis Muñoz-Rodes  6 , Luis Sánchez-Guillén  3   4
Affiliations
Observational Study

Functional, oncologic and clinical outcomes of robotic rectal resection using the Hugo™ RAS system versus laparoscopic surgery: A comparative cohort study

Antonio Arroyo et al. Int J Colorectal Dis. .

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the functional, short-term oncologic and clinical outcomes of robotic rectal resection using the Hugo™ RAS (Robotic-assisted surgery) system compared with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was based on a prospectively maintained database. Baseline demographics, perioperative variables, postoperative complications (Clavien‒Dindo), and both functional (LARS score, pain, urinary and sexual function) and oncologic outcomes were compared. Functional outcomes were assessed at one, three and six months postoperatively.

Results: A total of 40 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgery were included. 25 patients underwent laparoscopic resections and the remaining 15 patients received robotic resections using the Hugo™ RAS system. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. At the six-month follow-up compared to the laparoscopic group, the robotic group had significantly lower mean LARS scores (19.2 vs. 9.8; p = 0.008), a greater proportion without LARS (53% vs. 85%; p = ns), and lower pain levels (not significant pain: 71% vs. 93%; p = 0.019). Male patients who underwent robotic surgery had significantly better sexual function at 6 months (p = 0.045). No statistically significant differences were found in terms of complications, but differences in anastomotic leakage (12% vs. 0%), paralytic ileus (16% vs. 6.7%) or Clavien‒Dindo 3-5 (24% vs. 13.4%) were clinically significant in favour of the robotic group.

Conclusion: Robotic surgery with the Hugo™ RAS system is a feasible and safe alternative to conventional laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer, achieving comparable short-term oncologic outcomes while providing improved functional recovery. Ethics Committee of the General University Hospital of Elche (PI 60/2024).

Clinicaltrials id: NCT06512480.

Keywords: Functional outcomes; Hugo RAS system; LARS score; Laparoscopic surgery; Rectal cancer; Robotic surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethical Approval: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the General University Hospital of Elche (PI 60/2024). ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06512480. Conflicts of interest: AA and LSG are proctors for Medtronic.

References

    1. Reza MM, Blasco JA, Andradas E, Cantero R, Mayol J (2006) Systematic review of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 93(8):921–928. 10.1002/bjs.5430 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gómez Ruiz A, Estévez M, de la Portilla F (2020) Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 4(2):140–147. 10.1002/ags3.12401 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Fürst A, Lacy AM, Hop WC, Bonjer HJ, COlorectal cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection II (COLOR II) Study Group (2013) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14(3):210–218. 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70016-0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zhang Y, Yu X, Zhao H, Han G, Zeng Y, Liang H et al (2011) Meta-analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 17(44):5214–5220. 10.3748/wjg.v17.i44.5214 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Romero-Marcos JM, Sanchez-Romero A, Gonzalez-Abós S, Cuenca-Gómez C, Sánchez-Guillén L, Sampson-Dávila JG et al (2025) Application of the Hugo™ RAS robotic system in general surgery: a scoping review. J Robot Surg 19(1):289. 10.1007/s11701-025-02468-1 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources