Robotic surgery has moved into a new phase. The da Vinci system established robotic-assisted surgery across urology, gynaecology, general surgery and other specialties. New platforms such as Hugo RAS and Versius are now giving surgeons more options in the operating room.

The real value of this development lies in what happens to the patient after surgery. Smaller incisions, precise dissection and better access to difficult areas can support less pain, earlier mobilisation and a faster return to routine activities.

The robot itself is only one part of the result. Surgical technique, experience and patient selection continue to shape recovery.

More Robotic Platforms

The da Vinci system has a long clinical track record in robotic surgery. Its three-dimensional vision, magnification and wristed instruments allow surgeons to perform complex movements through small incisions.

Hugo RAS uses a modular design with separate robotic arms that can be positioned around the operating table. Versius also uses independent robotic arms. The designs offer more flexibility to surgeons in how they position the system and approach different procedures.

This matters because every operation has different requirements. Pelvic surgery, colorectal surgery and upper abdominal procedures require different access and instrument positioning.

The choice of platform can therefore depend on the procedure, the patient's anatomy, the operating room setup and the surgeon's experience.

What Patients Gain

Robotic surgery remains a form of minimally invasive surgery. The surgeon operates through small incisions rather than the larger incision used in open surgery.

For suitable procedures, this can mean less blood loss, less postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays and an earlier return to normal activity. The amount of recovery will depend on the type of surgery and the health of the patient.

The technique of the surgeon also counts. Careful handling of the tissue can help to protect surrounding structures and to aid recovery. The benefits should be measured in terms of patient outcomes rather than the technology itself.

The clinical evidence of da Vinci versus Hugo

RAS is now providing surgeons with a better picture of how newer platforms compare to established systems.

In 2024, a systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed nine studies of 1,185 patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy with Hugo RAS or da Vinci. The analysis found similar perioperative, cancer-related and functional outcomes between the two systems. The main difference was docking time, which was longer with Hugo RAS.

A 2026 prospective study published in the Journal of Robotic Surgery compared da Vinci Xi, Hugo RAS and Versius in 150 patients undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy. Each group included 50 patients. At six months, the study found similar safety, cancer-related outcomes and most patient-reported outcomes across the three platforms. Some differences in sexual and physical function appeared during the first month and had resolved by three months.

The findings are useful because they put the focus on the operation rather than the brand of the robot.

The Surgeon Remains Central

Robotic systems provide better visualisation and fine instrument control. The surgeon still decides where to dissect, what tissue to preserve and how to manage unexpected findings during the operation.

Experience also matters when a surgeon moves between platforms.

The COMPAR-P study involved two high-volume robotic surgeons who had extensive experience with da Vinci but had no previous experience with Hugo RAS or Versius before the study. The researchers saw similar results for all three platforms and concluded that surgical expertise seemed to matter more than the platform in outcomes.

A 2026 GRADE-assessed systematic review also found no statistically significant differences between Hugo RAS and da Vinci in operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, catheter duration or several other early outcomes. The authors also pointed out that the available evidence remains limited and larger multicentre studies are needed.

For patients, the surgeon's experience with robotic surgery and the specific procedure deserves as much attention as the name of the robotic system.

Recovery Goes Beyond Hospital Discharge

A shorter hospital stay is only one part of recovery.

A patient needs to walk comfortably, manage pain, eat normally, return to daily activities and regain strength. For prostate surgery, urinary continence and sexual function are important measures. Colorectal surgery requires bowel function and the resumption of a normal diet, other surgeries have their own benchmarks.

Robotic surgery could help with smaller incisions and accurate dissection to help recovery. The real benefit hinges on the procedure and patient's condition.

Recovery also depends on good postoperative care. Early mobilisation, adequate nutrition, pain control, physiotherapy when required and regular follow-up all contribute to the outcome.

Where Multi-Platform Robotics Is Heading

More robotic systems mean more choice for hospitals and surgeons. They also create more opportunities to compare surgical outcomes across platforms.

The next phase will require stronger clinical evidence across different procedures, larger patient groups and longer follow-up.

The evidence in prostate surgery is encouraging. The 2026 COMPAR-P study found comparable six-month outcomes across da Vinci, Hugo RAS and Versius. A separate 2026 meta-analysis found similar early outcomes between Hugo RAS and da Vinci while calling for larger prospective studies.

The evidence suggests a pragmatic approach where hospitals can evaluate robotic systems based on clinical needs, surgeon skill, operating room requirements and patient outcomes.

The Patient Remains the Measure

The growth of multiple robotic platforms marks an important stage in minimally invasive surgery. Da Vinci has built extensive clinical experience. Hugo RAS and Versius have added different designs and operating approaches. The technology will continue to develop, but the measure of progress remains the same.

Patients want safe surgery, less pain, a shorter recovery and a return to normal life. The robot helps the surgeon achieve those goals. It does not achieve them on its own.

The future of robotic surgery will depend on better technology, stronger clinical evidence and surgeons who can use these systems effectively. For patients, that means greater access to minimally invasive surgery and, where the procedure is appropriate, a recovery that can be quicker and easier to manage.

(By Dr. Ashish Gautam, Principal Director, Robotic and Laparoscopic Surgery, Max Super Speciality Hospital, Patparganj, New Delhi)



Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. NDTV is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this article. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts or opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.