816 posters, 24 topics, 3,314 authors, 1,012 institutions
ePostersLive by SciGen Technologies S.A. All rights reserved.
SAGES 2026 Annual Meeting Emerging Technology Session
March 25-28, 2026 | Tampa, FL, USA

P092
Comparative Safety Outcomes in Primary and Incisional Ventral Hernia Repair with the Medtronic Hugo™ Robotic-assisted Surgery System: A Subgroup Analysis
Poster Presenter
Authors
Jacob Greenberg, Ajay Panchal, Jeffrey Berndtson, Steven Hopson, Clayton Petro, Salvatore Docimo, Erik Wilson, Pier Giulianotti, Chris Irwin, Ruben Larue, David Chen, Flavio Malcher
Affiliations
Northwell Health, Duke University, University of Buffalo, Tidewater Physicians Multispecialty Group Hernia Center, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, University of South Florida, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, University of Illinois Hospital, Medtonic, Lichtenstein Hernia Institute at UCLA
Part of Topic
Abdominal Wall Hernias
Introduction
Ventral hernia repair represents a significant volume of surgical pathology and the use of robotic assisted surgery (RAS) for ventral primary and incisional hernia repair has increased exponentially over the past decade.
Objective: To report the outcomes of 96 patients with primary and incisional ventral hernias treated with the investigational Hugo RAS system in the US through 30 days post-operation (NCT06445504).
Methods
This prospective, multicenter, FDA-monitored, investigational device exemption study of the Hugo RAS system for primary and incisional ventral hernia repair was conducted across seven US sites as part of the Enable Hernia Repair study.
Device safety was assessed based on procedure- and/or device-related surgical-site event (SSE) rates through 30 days, including bleeding requiring transfusion, bowel injury, bowel obstruction, cellulitis, epigastric vessel injury, hematoma or seroma requiring intervention, and surgical-site infection.
Operative times and conversion, 30-day complication (Clavien–Dindo (CD) grade), readmission, reoperation, and recurrence rates were assessed.
“Conversion” was defined as a perioperative change from the use of the Hugo RAS system to traditional laparoscopy, open surgery, or the use of another RAS system.
“Device effectiveness” was defined as no conversion during the procedure.
“Complication” was defined as CD grade ≥ I. “Major complication” was defined as CD grade ≥III.
Continuous variables are summarized using the number of patients (n), mean and standard deviation (SD), or median and interquartile range (IQR). Categorical variables are summarized using frequencies and percentages.
Results
Discussion/Conclusions
