The trend toward minimally invasive complex abdominal wall reconstruction: is it worth it?

Systematic review and meta-analysis on robotic assisted ventral hernia repair: the ROVER review

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery for ventral hernia repair (VHR) is gaining attention for its potential advantages over laparoscopic and open techniques. This approach combines the advantages of minimally invasive surgery with the ability to perform technically challenging procedures, often required in open surgery but difficult with conventional laparoscopy. We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of robotic VHR compared to other surgical approaches, focusing on postoperative complications, operative time, and costs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis were conducted, including 67 studies from January 2010 to May 2023 on Robotic VHR compared with other techniques. Primary outcome was 30-days postoperative complications; SSI, SSO, seroma, mortality, recurrence, length of hospital stay, operative time and costs were analysed as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Robotic surgery was associated with longer operative times compared to both laparoscopic (MD 64.67 min; p < 0.001) and open repairs (MD 69.69 min; p < 0.001). However, it resulted, compared to open surgery, in fewer SSIs (OR 0.62; p 0.05), mortality (OR 0.44; p 0.04) and shorter hospital stay (MD -3.77 days; p < 0.001). No differences were found in overall complications or length of stay between robotic and laparoscopic approaches but higher costs and longer operative times were reported in robotic VHR.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the currently available low-quality evidence, robotic VHR appears to offer limited advantages compared to laparoscopic techniques. However, when compared to open approaches, robotic VHR may demonstrate reduced postoperative complications and shorter hospital stays even if an higher rate of seroma formation was retrieved probably related to technical details. Nevertheless, longer operative times and higher costs remain significant limitations. Further high-quality comparative studies are warranted to assess long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

A comparison between robotic-assisted and open approaches for large ventral hernia repair-a multicenter analysis of 30 days outcomes using the ACHQC database

INTRODUCTION

Over the last few decades, there has been an increase in the use of a minimally invasive (MIS) approach for complex hernias involving component separation. A robotic platform provides better visualization and mobilization of tissues for component separation. We aim to assess the outcomes of open and robotic-assisted approaches for large VHR utilizing the ACHQC national database.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) was performed to include all adult patients who had primary and incisional midline ventral hernias larger than 10 cm and underwent elective open and robotic hernia repairs with mesh from January 2013 to March 2023. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed comparing Open and Robotic approaches.

RESULTS

The ACHQC database identified 5,516 patients with midline hernias larger than 10 cm who underwent VHR. The open group (OG) had 4,978 patients, and the robotic group (RG) had 538. The RG had a higher median BMI (33.3 kg/m2 (IQR 29.8-38.1) vs 32.7 (IQR 28.7-36.6) (p < 0.001). Median hernia width was 15 cm (IQR 12-18) in the OG and 12 cm in the RG (10-14) (p < 0.001). Sublay positioning of the mesh was the most common. The fascial closure was higher in the RG (524; 97% versus 4,708; 95%-p = 0.005). Median Length of Stay (LOS) was 5 days (IQR 4-7) in the OG and 2 days (IQR 1-3) in the RG (p < 0.001). The readmission rate was higher in the OG (n = 374; 7.5% vs n = 16; 3%; p < 0.001). 30-day SSI were higher in the OG (343; 6.9%% vs 14; 2.6%; p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis identified diabetes (OR 1.6; CI 1.1-2.1; p = 0.006) and BMI (OR 1.04, CI 1.02-1.06; p < 0.001) as predictors of SSIs, while the robotic approach was protective (OR 0.35, CI 0.17-0.64; p = 0.002). For SSO, logistic regression showed BMI (OR 1.04, CI 1.03-1.06; p < 0.001) and smoking (OR 1.8, CI 1.3-2.4; p < 0.001) as predictors Robotic approach was associated with lower readmission rates (OR .04, CI 0.2-0.6; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A robotic approach improves early 30-day outcomes compared to an open technique for large VHR. There was no difference in SSO at 30 days.

Short-term outcomes of minimally invasive techniques in posterior component separation for ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize various approaches in performing minimally invasive posterior component separation (MIS PCS) and ascertain their safety and short-term outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature searches of major databases were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines to identify studies that provided perioperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes of MIS PCS. Primary outcomes for this study were: surgical site events (SSE), surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI), and overall complication rates. A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted which allows computation of 95% CIs using simple approximation and incorporates inverse variance method with logit transformation of proportions.

RESULTS

There were 14 studies that enrolled 850 participants that were included. The study identified rate of SSE, SSOPI, and overall rate of complications of all MIS TAR modifications to be 13.4%, 5.7%, and 19%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides important information on safety and short-term outcomes of MIS PCS. These data can be used as reference when counseling patients, calculating sample size for prospective trials, setting up targets for prospective audit of hernia centers. Standardization of reporting of preoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing MIS PCS and strict audit of the procedure through introduction of prospective national and international registries can facilitate improvement of safety of the MIS complex abdominal wall reconstruction, and help in identifying the safest and most cost-effective modification.

Robotic surgery for inguinal and ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopy or open surgery for inguinal (IHR) and ventral (VHR) hernia repair.

METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE were searched up to July 2022. Meta-analyses were performed for postoperative complications, surgical site infections (SSI), seroma/hematoma, hernia recurrence, operating time (OT), intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative bowel injury, conversion to open surgery, length of stay (LOS), mortality, reoperation rate, readmission rate, use of opioids, time to return to work and time to return to normal activities.

RESULTS

Overall, 64 studies were selected and 58 were used for pooled data analyses: 35 studies (227 242 patients) deal with IHR and 32 (158 384 patients) with VHR. Robotic IHR was associated with lower hernia recurrence (OR 0.54; 95%CI 0.29, 0.99; I2: 0%) compared to laparoscopic IHR, and lower use of opioids compared to open IHR (OR 0.46; 95%CI 0.25, 0.84; I2: 55.8%). Robotic VHR was associated with lower bowel injuries (OR 0.59; 95%CI 0.42, 0.85; I2: 0%) and less conversions to open surgery (OR 0.51; 95%CI 0.43, 0.60; I2: 0%) compared to laparoscopy. Compared to open surgery, robotic VHR was associated with lower postoperative complications (OR 0.61; 95%CI 0.39, 0.96; I2: 68%), less SSI (OR 0.47; 95%CI 0.31, 0.72; I2: 0%), less intraoperative blood loss (- 95 mL), shorter LOS (- 3.4 day), and less hospital readmissions (OR 0.66; 95%CI 0.44, 0.99; I2: 24.7%). However, both robotic IHR and VHR were associated with significantly longer OT compared to laparoscopy and open surgery.

CONCLUSION

These results support robotic surgery as a safe, effective, and viable alternative for IHR and VHR as it can brings several intraoperative and postoperative advantages over laparoscopy and open surgery.

The Role of Robotics in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

Robotic abdominal wall reconstruction is becoming an accepted technique to approach complex hernias in a minimally invasive fashion. There remain a deficit of high-quality data to suggest significant clinical benefit but current randomized trials are ongoing. Robotic surgery can be applied to a range of abdominal wall defects safely and with positive outcomes which are at least equivocal to open abdominal wall techniques.

A cost-conscious establishment of a robotic abdominal wall reconstruction program in a publicly funded healthcare system

PURPOSE

Despite reports of better short-term outcomes, the main criticism for the adoption of the robotic surgery platform for abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) has been the associated cost, especially in countries with a publicly funded healthcare system such as Canada. We describe our experience in implementation of robotic AWR while ensuring cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort analysis of all patients with ventral hernias ranging between 5 to 15 cm who underwent either open or robotic AWR between January 2020 to August 2022. We reviewed patient characteristics, operative time, post-operative length of stay (LOS), and average cost of surgery.

RESULTS

45 patients underwent open repair and 28 underwent robotic repair in the study period. There was no difference in major patient characteristics between the two groups. Operative time was shorter for open repairs (233.2 ± 96.6 min vs. 299.3 ± 71.8 min, p < 0.001). LOS was significantly longer for open repairs (5 days (interquartile range = 4-6) vs. 2 days (IQR = 1.75-3), p < 0.001) and there were significantly more patients who underwent robotic repair who left hospital in less than 3 days (13.3 vs. 64.3%, p < 0.001). The average overall hospital-based cost for each open repair was $26,952.18 when the cost for equipment, operative time, inpatient hospital stay, and epidural use are accounted for, compared to $17,447.40 for robotic repair ($9,504.78 saving per case).

CONCLUSION

With proper selection of patients based on size of hernia, we demonstrate cost conscious adaptation of the robotic technology to AWR. Our future studies will continue to explore the benefits and limits of this approach in complex hernia repair.

Towards identifying a learning curve for robotic abdominal wall reconstruction: a cumulative sum analysis

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, an increase has been seen in robotics used for hernia repair, specifically robotic abdominal wall reconstruction (rAWR). However, the learning curve for rAWR can be steep and presently, little is understood regarding the optimal case volume required to achieve proficiency. The aim of our study was to review skill acquisition and describe the learning curve for rAWR.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-surgeon case series of consecutive patients who underwent rAWR from 2018 to 2022. The primary outcome was operative time, obtained from console time identified through the MyIntutive application. A one-sided cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM) curve for the total operative time was derived based on the mean operative time of chronological procedures (207 min).

RESULTS

185 patients underwent rAWR between 2018 and 2022. These patients were more likely to be female, Caucasian, and have undergone two previous hernia repairs. ASA complexity increased over time with ASA 3 being predominant from 2020 onwards. The median hernia length was 15.0 cm and the median width was 7 cm. Average operative time was 207.8 min and decreased over time. The CUSUM analysis identified four phases of skill acquisition with the following case volumes: Initial Learning Curve (0-20), Stabilization Phase (21-55), Second Learning Curve (56-70), 4) Skill Proficiency (> 70).

CONCLUSION

In the early learning curve of rAWR, operative time decreased consistently after 70 cases, with an initial inflection after 20 cases. We identified varying stages of skill acquisition that are likely typical of a surgeon as they would progress through the learning curve of advanced robotic surgery. Future studies are needed to confirm the optimal case volume for determining the skill level for the performance of rAWR.

Endoscopic transversus abdominis release in the treatment of midline incisional hernias: a prospective single-center observational study on 100 patients

BACKGROUND

For W2-3 incisional hernias of the midline, a component separation is often needed to achieve closure of the fascia during repair with a mesh. Posterior component separation has been initially performed via open surgical approach, but more recently interest in minimally invasive reconstruction has grown. The aim of this work is to describe the technical aspects of endoscopic hernia repair with posterior component separation and to assess its feasibility in midline incisional hernias, based on the analysis of the results.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated and analyzed patients with midline incisional hernias who underwent endoscopic posterior component separation by transversus abdominis release (TAR).

RESULTS

A group of 100 patients was operated between April 2017 and September 2021. The median follow-up was 27 ± 13.5 months, mean age 59 ± 10.2 years, ASA 2.5 ± 0.7; 94% of patients had comorbidity. There were 7 (7%) complications observed in the early postoperative period-retromuscular hematoma (1), infection of the retromuscular space (4), and thrombophlebitis of superficial veins (2). In 4 (4%) patients, late complications were observed-persistent seroma (3) and chronic pain (1). There were no hernia recurrences in the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

The use of TAR endoscopic separation can reduce the number of unfavorable surgical site events, compared to the published data on a similar open surgery, while maintaining a low recurrence rate.

Controversies in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

This article discuses current controversies in abdominal wall reconstruction, including the standardization of outcome reporting, mesh selection, the utility of robotic surgery in ventral hernia repair, and role for prophylactic stoma mesh at the time of permanent end colostomy formation. The current state of the literature pertaining to these topics is reviewed in detail.

Comparisons of abdominal wall reconstruction for ventral hernia repairs, open versus robotic

The surgical complexities of our current population have pushed the technological limits of healthcare, urging for minimally invasive approaches. For ventral hernias, in particular, robotic assisted laparoscopic repairs have been met with conflict. Cost and longer operative times are among the arguments against robotic surgery, although thorough evaluation of patient outcomes could potentially advocate for use of this tool. We attempted to approach this by retrospectively reviewing our own data. We reviewed charts between September 2016 and February 2017 of patients receiving complex hernia repairs, either a standard open repair (SOR) or robotic-assisted repair (RAR). Data collected included preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative care. Of the 43 patients reviewed, 16 were SOR, versus 27 RAR. Patients were comparable in age, gender, BMI, diabetes as a comorbidity; average hernia defect size was similar between the two groups. Although operative times were longer in the RAR group, estimated blood loss (EBL) was less. Hospital stay was also shorter in the RAR group, at 3.0 ± 1.9 days versus 9.6 ± 8.4 days for the OAR group. Of those requiring critical care management, only one patient had a robotic assisted repair, versus half of the patients who received an open repair. Of the patients who presented to the emergency department within 30 days of surgery, each group had four patients, and two from the OAR group required admission. Our data is consistent with other literature supporting shorter lengths of stays. Although the robotic approach did required a longer operative time, the resulting improved patient outcomes support this technique for complex ventral hernia repairs.

Impact of Body Mass Index (BMI) on perioperative outcomes following minimally invasive retromuscular abdominal wall reconstruction: a comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

Morbidity and recurrence rates are higher in obese patients undergoing open abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR). Historically, body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 has served as a relative contraindication to open AWR. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) on outcomes after AWR for higher versus lower BMI patients.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was conducted of all patients who underwent MIS AWR between September 2015 and April 2019 at our institution. Patients were subdivided into two groups based on their BMI: BMI ≤ 35 kg/m² and BMI > 35 kg/m². Patient demographics and perioperative data were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

461 patients were identified and divided into two groups: BMI ≤ 35 (n = 310) and BMI > 35 (n = 151). The two groups were similar in age (BMI ≤ 35: 56.3 ± 14.1 years vs. BMI > 35: 54.4 ± 11.9, p = .154). BMI > 35 group had more patients with ASA score of 3 (81% vs. 32%, p < .001) and comorbid conditions such as hypertension (70% vs. 45%, p < .001), diabetes mellitus (32% vs. 15%, p < .001), and history of recurrent abdominal wall hernia (34% vs. 23%, p = .008). BMI > 35 group underwent a robotic approach at higher rates (74% vs. 45%, p < .001). Patients who underwent a Rives-Stoppa repair from the higher BMI cohort also had a larger defect size (5.6 ± 2.4 cm vs. 6.7 ± 2.4 cm, p = .004). However, there were no differences in defect size in patients who underwent a transversus abdominus release (BMI ≤ 35: 9.7 ± 4.9 cm vs. BMI > 35: 11.1 ± 4.6 cm, p = .069). Both groups benefited similarly from a short length of stay, similar hospital charges, and lower postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Initial findings of our data support the benefits of elective MIS approach to AWR for patients with higher BMI. These patients derive similar benefits, such as faster recovery with low recurrence rates, when compared to lower BMI patients, while avoiding preoperative hernia incarceration, postoperative wound complications, and hernia recurrences. Future follow-up is required to establish long-term perioperative and quality of life outcomes in this patient cohort.

Management of ventral hernia in patients with BMI > 30 Kg/m2: outcomes based on an institutional algorithm

INTRODUCTION

Management of ventral hernia in obese is a complex problem. The methods of weight loss, alternatives if the patient cannot undergo bariatric surgery, timing, and type of hernia surgery lacks clarity and are dependent on resources and expertise. There is a need for algorithms based on local population and expertise. In this paper, we present the outcomes of our institutional algorithm.

METHODS

It was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Patients with body mass index (BMI) > 30Kg/m² were included to undergo surgery as per algorithm taking into account (a) presentation (symptomatic vs asymptomatic), (b) hernia characteristics (defect width, site, reducibility), and (c) obesity characteristics (BMI, subcutaneous fat, android vs gynecoid). Data on age, BMI, comorbidities, tobacco consumption, hernia width, location, contents, previous surgery, intraoperative parameters (the type of surgery, mesh, drain, fixation), and outcomes (seroma, hematoma, infection, recurrence) were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients underwent treatment as per the algorithm. Mean BMI was 36.6 ± 7.3 kg/m². The mean follow-up was 17.6 ± 7.2 months. The mean defect width was 4.8 ± 2.9 cm. There were two (4%) recurrences in patients who underwent an anatomical repair under emergency conditions. None of the patients who underwent an elective repair had a recurrence. Total surgical site occurrence was 12% and surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention was 8%. There was one (2%) mortality on postoperative day 7 due to myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSION

The algorithm has shown encouraging results in the short-to-medium term. Long-term evaluation with a higher number of patients is needed to confirm its usefulness.

Hybrid versus open retromuscular abdominal wall repair: early outcomes

BACKGROUND

The hybrid approach to abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) for abdominal wall hernias combines minimally invasive posterior component separation and retromuscular dissection with open fascial closure and mesh implantation. This combination may enhance patient outcomes and recovery compared to the open approach alone. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the operative outcomes of hybrid vs. open abdominal wall reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted to compare patients who underwent open versus hybrid AWR between September 2015 and August of 2018 at Anne Arundel Medical Center. Patient demographics and perioperative data were collected and analyzed using univariate analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were included in the final analysis: 10 in the hybrid and 55 in the open groups. Mean age was higher in the hybrid vs. open group (65.1 vs. 56.2 years, p < 0.05). The hybrid and open groups were statistically similar (p > 0.05) in gender distribution, mean BMI, and ASA score. Intraoperative comparison found hybrid patients parallel to open patients (p > 0.05) in mean operative time (294.5 vs. 267.5 min), defect size (14.4 vs. 13.6 cm), mesh area, and drain placement. The mean total hospital cost was lower in the hybrid group compared to the open group ($16,426 vs. $19,054, p = 0.43). The hybrid group had a shorter length of stay (5.3 vs. 3.6 days, p = 0.03) after surgery and was followed for a similar length of time (12.3 vs. 12.6 months, p = 0.91). The hybrid group showed a lower trend of seroma, hematoma, wound infection, ileus, and readmission rates after surgery.

CONCLUSION

A review of patient outcomes after hybrid AWR highlights a trend towards shorter length of stay, lower hospital cost, and fewer complications without significant addition to operative time. Long-term studies on a larger number of patients are definitively needed to characterize the comprehensive benefits of this approach.

How Does a New General Surgery Residency Program's Junior Residents Impact Hospital Efficiency and Productivity?

OBJECTIVE

The general surgery workforce deficit is projected to grow to 15% to 21% by 2050. An estimated 6.6% increase to existing general surgery residency (GSR) programs is needed to meet this shortfall. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a new GSR program on efficiency and productivity at a regional healthcare center.

STUDY DESIGN

An institutional database was retrospectively queried for all GSR related procedures between July 2015 and June 2018. Procedures done prior to GSR initiation (pre-GSR) were compared to those done after (post-GSR). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

We reviewed 10,617 procedures (6365 pre-GSR vs. 4252 post-GSR). Patients had lower preoperative Hierarchical Condition Category scores in the post-GSR group (0.71 vs. 0.58, p < 0.01). Operative times increased post-GSR (101.7 vs. 109.1 minutes, p < 0.01), but length of stay decreased (6.4 vs. 5.5 days, p = 0.01). Thirty-day readmissions (4.0% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.11) were comparable, but reoperations significantly decreased post-GSR (10.1% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.01). Average hospital costs remained unchanged ($10,765 vs. $10,140, p = 0.12). Multivariate analysis revealed no statistical difference in operative times, length of stay, 30-day readmissions and reoperations, and hospital costs between the 2 groups. Subset analysis based on surgical service also showed no statistical difference. Productivity increased on the general surgery service post-GSR (7.1 vs. 7.8 cases per day, p = 0.02). Patient satisfaction increased post-GSR (76% vs. 81%, p = 0.31), but without statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

The initiation of a new GSR program did not negatively impact operative times, length of stay, 30-day readmissions and reoperations, hospital costs, case volume, or patient satisfaction.

Comparative review of outcomes: laparoscopic and robotic enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) access retrorectus repairs

BACKGROUND

Building on the principles of eTEP access, described by Dr. Jorge Daes, our group has previously described and standardized a novel minimally invasive approach to restoration of the linea alba and repair of lateral atypical defects of the abdominal wall. The purpose of this report is to present comparative analysis of laparoscopic and robotic eTEP access retrorectus repairs.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted in patients who underwent laparoscopic eTEP (lap-eRS) and robotic-assisted eTEP (robo-eRS) Rives-Stoppa repairs between September 2015 and May 2018 at our institution. We analyzed the preoperative demographics and the perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Our review identified 206 patients (Lap-eRS 120 vs. robo-eRS 86). The groups were comparable (p > 0.05) in gender distribution (47.6% vs. 53% male) and mean age (53.2 vs. 50.8 years), but different (p < 0.05) in mean BMI (31.3 vs. 34.4 kg/m²) and ASA score (2.1 vs. 2.4). The robo-eRS group had a larger defect size (5.5 vs. 7.1 cm, p < 0.05), a longer mean operative time (120.4 vs. 174.7 min, p < 0.05), and a higher hospitalization cost ($5,091 vs. $6,751, p = 0.005) compared to the lap-eRS group. Average length of stay (0.2 vs. 0.1 days), length of drain placement (5.3 vs. 5.7 days), and reoperations (2.5% vs. 2.3%) were similar between lap-eRS and robo-eRS (p > 0.05). Patients in both groups (lap-eRS vs. robo-eRS) were followed for an average of 5.7 months vs. 5.5 months (p = .735) and showed similar recurrence rates (1.7% vs. 1.2%, p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

We present the largest series to-date of eTEP access laparoscopic and robotic ventral hernia retrorectus repairs. Morbidly obese patients and those with more complex abdominal wall defects were more likely to undergo a robo-eRS. The significantly longer operative time and higher hospital cost associated with the robo-eRS group may be in part due to these factors. Both robotic and laparoscopic eTEP Rives-Stoppa repairs are associated with favorable perioperative outcomes and low recurrence rates.

Ascending the Learning Curve of Robotic Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

Background:

Robotic complex abdominal wall reconstruction (r-AWR) using transversus abdominis release (TAR) is associated with decreased wound complications, morbidity, and length of stay compared with open repair. This report describes a single-institution experience of r-AWR.

Methods:

A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent r-AWR by a single surgeon (D.H.) from August 2015 through October 2018.

Results:

Fifty-five patients underwent r-AWR (16 males [29%] and 39 females [71%]) with a mean age of 60.2 (range 33 to 87) years and a mean body mass index of 34.6 (range 23 to 54) kg/m². Forty-one patients presented with an initial ventral hernia (74.5%) and 14 with a recurrent hernia (25.5%). Five patients had a grade 1 hernia (9.1%), 46 had a grade 2 hernia (83.6%), and 4 had a grade 3 hernia (7.3%) according to the Ventral Hernia Working Group system. Thirty-four (62%) patients underwent TAR, 21 (38%) patients underwent bilateral retrorectus release, and 10 (18.2%) patients underwent concomitant inguinal hernia repair. Mean operative time with TAR was 294 (range 106 to 472) minutes and 183 (range 126 to 254) minutes without TAR. Mean length of stay was 1.5 (range 0 to 10) days. Mean follow-up was 10.7 (range 1 to 52) weeks with no hernia recurrences. Seromas occurred in 6 (10.9%) patients, with 2 (3.6%) requiring drainage. Two (3.6%) 30-day readmissions occurred with no conversions to open or 30-day mortalities.

Conclusions:

r-AWR with and without TAR is a safe and feasible procedure associated with a short LOS, low complication rate, and low recurrence even within the surgeon's learning curve experience.

Early operative outcomes of endoscopic (eTEP access) robotic-assisted retromuscular abdominal wall hernia repair

BACKGROUND

The enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) hernia repair technique was first described for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair and later applied to laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair. We present our center's early operative outcomes utilizing principles of this technique during robotic ventral and incisional hernia repair for implementation of the robotic eTEP Rives-Stoppa (eRS) and eTEP transversus abdominis release (eTAR) techniques.

METHODS

A review of a prospectively maintained database of hernia patients was conducted identifying 37 patients who underwent robotic eTEP for ventral, incisional, flank or parastomal hernia repair between March and October 2017. All patients underwent retrorectus dissection with selective utilization of transversus abdominis release (TAR) as indicated.

RESULTS

37 patients including 13 male and 24 female with mean age, body mass index, and ASA score of 54, 35.5, and 2.4, respectively, underwent a mean operation room time of 198 min. Mean length of stay was 0.7 days. There were no intraoperative complications. Two patients developed subcutaneous seromas requiring interventional radiology drainage. One patient was readmitted at 30 days for PO intolerance that was managed expectantly. Mean postoperative follow-up visit occurred at 36 days with no sign of early hernia recurrences.

CONCLUSION

The enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal approach is both safe and feasible in robotic-assisted repair of ventral and incisional hernias. Although long-term outcomes and patient selection criteria require further study, we believe this technique will become an important tool in the armamentarium of minimally invasive hernia surgeons.

Comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes of robotic versus open transversus abdominis release

BACKGROUND

Transversus abdominis release (TAR) has evolved as an effective approach to complex abdominal wall reconstructions. Although the role of robotics in hernia surgery is rapidly expanding, the benefits of a robotic approach for abdominal wall reconstruction have not been established well. We aimed to compare the impact of the application of robotics to the TAR procedure on the perioperative outcomes when compared to the open TAR repairs.

METHODS

Case-matched comparison of patients undergoing robotic TAR (R-TAR) at two specialized hernia centers to a matched historic cohort of open TAR (O-TAR) patients was performed. Outcome measures included patient demographics, operative details, postoperative complications, and length of hospitalization.

RESULTS

38 consecutive patients undergoing R-TAR were compared to 76 matched O-TAR. Patient demographics were similar between the groups, but ASA III status was more prevalent in the O-TAR group. The average operative time was significantly longer in the R-TAR group (299 ± 95 vs.. 211 ± 63 min, p < 0.001) and blood loss was significantly lower for the R-TAR group (49 ± 60 vs. 139 ± 149 mL, p < 0.001). Wound morbidity was minimal in the R-TAR, but the rate of surgical site events and surgical site infection was not different between groups. Systemic complications were significantly less frequent in the R-TAR group (0 vs. 17.1%, p = 0.026). The length of hospitalization was significantly reduced in the R-TAR group (1.3 ± 1.3 vs. 6.0 ± 3.4 days, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In our early experience, robotic TAR was associated with longer operative times. However, we found that the use of robotics was associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss, fewer systemic complications, shorter hospitalizations, and eliminated readmissions. While long-term outcomes and patient selection criteria for robotic TAR repair are under investigations, we advocate selective use of robotics for TAR reconstructions in patients undergoing AWR.