Laparoscopic versus robotic inguinal hernia repair: a single-center case-matched study

In-hospital outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in obese patients: a national inpatient sample analysis 2005-2020

PURPOSE

Obesity is associated with complications in surgical procedures and postoperative outcomes. This study aims to compare in-hospital outcomes of robotic inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) in obese patients.

METHODS

Data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2005 to 2020 were used in this study. Inclusion criteria were ≥ 18 years old with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m²) who underwent either RIHR or LIHR. Data were analyzed for in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), total hospital costs, and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 647 patients were included. Multivariable analysis showed RIHR was associated with a significantly lower risk of any complications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36, 0.77), shorter LOS (adjusted Beta [aBeta] = -0.94, 95%CI: -1.02, -0.86), and higher total hospital costs (aBeta = 5.62, 95%CI: 4.80, 6.44). Stratified analysis revealed that the lower risk of complications with RIHR was consistent across most subgroups, including age < 60 years (aOR = 0.56) and ≥ 60 years (aOR = 0.53), non-smokers (aOR = 0.53) and smokers (aOR = 0.48), non-hypertensive (aOR = 0.27) and hypertensive patients (aOR = 0.66), and non-diabetic (aOR = 0.53) and diabetic patients (aOR = 0.44), as well as patients admitted during 2017-2020 (aOR = 0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

RIHR is associated with lower complication risk and shorter LOS, but higher hospital costs compared to LIHR for obese patients. These findings suggest that RIHR may offer better short-term outcomes for obese patients, which should be considered in surgical decision-making. Given the retrospective nature of this analysis and the potential for selection bias and residual confounding, future randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings and provide more robust evidence to guide surgical decision-making.

A Systematic Review of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair: Management of Inguinal Hernias in the 21st Century

Background: In the 21st century, the management of groin hernias (GHs) has evolved from watchful waiting (WW) to robotic hernia repair (RHR). The present study interrogates the status of robotics in the context of current repairs and provides one author's perspectives. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for studies comparing open (OHR) to robotic hernia repair (RHR); RHR to laparoscopic hernia repair (LHR); or OHR vs. LHR vs. RHR. The historical context was extracted from previous reviews. Results: Fifty-four studies were included in the analysis. Three techniques have withstood the test of time: OHR (tissue and mesh repairs), laparo-endoscopic (TEP and TAPP), and RHR. The literature indicates that RHR is safe and effective for the management of groin hernias. Operative times and costs remain a concern when using this technique. While the number of overall complications with RHR is similar to OHR, in a minority of cases, complications are more consequential with the robotic platform. Conclusions: RHR has emerged as an unequivocally powerful technique for the management of GHs. OHR remains the technique of choice for local/regional anesthesia, posterior recurrences, and in centers that lack other platforms. In low- and middle-income countries, OHR is the most utilized technique. Centers of excellence should offer all techniques of repair including WW.

Single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The evolution of minimally invasive surgery has transformed inguinal hernia repair (IHR). The innovative single-port technique reduces the number of surgical incisions. However, the benefits of single-port IHR remain controversial. Our systematic review and network meta-analysis assess the efficacy and clinical outcomes of single-port laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (SPL-IHR), multi-port laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (MPL-IHR), single-port robotic inguinal hernia repair (SPR-IHR), and multi-port robotic inguinal hernia repair (MPR-IHR).

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Ovid for articles published before January 2024, focusing on complication rates, recurrence, seroma, hematoma, operative time, post-operative pain, and cosmetic outcomes of laparoscopic or robotic IHR. Both extraperitoneal (TEP) and transabdominal (TAPP) approaches were analyzed using MetaInsight. MPL-TAPP was used as the standard for comparison.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies, including 5,038 patients, 36.92% (1,860 patients) underwent MPL-TEP, 23.64% (1,191 patients) SPL-TEP, 22.23% (1,120 patients) MPR-TAPP, 10.08% (508 patients) MPL-TAPP, 5.40% (272 patients) SPL-TAPP, and 1.73% (87 patients) SPR-TAPP. There were no significant differences in the rates of post-operative complications, hernia recurrence, hematoma, or seroma among the techniques when compared to MPL-TAPP. For secondary outcomes, MPR-TAPP significantly increased the operative time for unilateral hernia repair by a mean difference (MD) of 10.60 min [95% CI: 2.16-19.04]. Conversely, for bilateral hernia repair, there was no significant difference. Post-operative pain was significantly higher for MPL-TEP and SPL-TEP, with MDs of 1.44 [95% CI: 0.43 to 2.44] and 1.22 [95% CI: 0.18 to 2.26], respectively. SPL-TEP was significantly favored in cosmetic outcomes over MPL-TEP, with an MD of 0.65 [95% CI: 0.07 to 1.24].

CONCLUSION

In our network meta-analysis, the risk of post-operative complications, including recurrence, hematoma, and seroma, does not significantly vary among single-port and multi-port laparoscopic or robotic techniques. This suggests that surgical technique selection can rely on surgeon expertise and resource availability, without compromising outcomes.

Comparing Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Inguinal hernia repair is a common surgical intervention. Advancements in minimally invasive techniques, specifically laparoscopic (LR) and robot-assisted (RR) approaches, have reshaped the landscape of surgical options. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic and robot-assisted inguinal hernia repair through a comprehensive review of the literature. A systematic search of databases was conducted to identify relevant studies published up to November 30, 2023. Fifteen studies, encompassing a total of 64,568 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Pooled estimates for key outcomes, including duration of operation, overall complications, and surgical site infection (SSI), were calculated using random-effects models. This meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in the duration of surgery, favoring laparoscopic repair over robot-assisted techniques (mean difference: 26.85 minutes, 95% CI (1.16, 52.54)). Overall complications did not significantly differ between the two approaches (odds ratio: 1.54, 95% CI (0.83, 2.85)). However, a significantly greater risk of SSI was identified for robot-assisted procedures (odds ratio: 3.32, 95% CI (2.63, 4.19)). This meta-analysis provides insights into the comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic and robot-assisted inguinal hernia repair. While laparoscopy has shorter operative times and comparable overall complication rates, the increased risk of SSI during robot-assisted procedures necessitates careful consideration in clinical decision-making. Surgeons and healthcare providers should weigh these findings according to patient characteristics, emphasizing a personalized approach to surgical decision-making. The evolving landscape of inguinal hernia repair warrants ongoing research to refine techniques and optimize outcomes for the benefit of patients undergoing these procedures.

Current trends and outcomes for unilateral groin hernia repairs in the United States using the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database: A multicenter propensity score matching analysis of 30-day and 1-year outcomes

BACKGROUND

Different unilateral groin hernia repair approaches have been developed in the last 2 decades. The most commonly done approaches are open inguinal hernia repair by the Lichenstein technique, laparoscopic approach by either total extraperitoneal or transabdominal preperitoneal, and robotic transabdominal preperitoneal approach. Hence, this study aimed to compare early and late postoperative outcomes in patients who underwent unilateral robotic transabdominal preperitoneal, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, and laparoscopic total extraperitoneal, and open groin hernia repair using a United States national hernia database, the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative Database.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database was retrospectively reviewed, including all adult patients who underwent elective unilateral groin hernia repair from 2015 to 2022, with a 1:1 propensity score match analysis conducted for balanced groups. The univariate analysis compared the groups across the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative timeframes.

RESULTS

The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database identified 14,320 patients who underwent elective unilateral groin hernia repair and had documented 30 days of follow-up. Propensity score matching stratified 1,598 patients to each group (total of 6,392). The median age was 64 years (interquartile range 53-74) for open groin hernia repair, whereas 60 (interquartile range 47-69) for laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, 62 (interquartile range 48-70) for laparoscopic total extraperitoneal, and 60 (interquartile range 47-70) for robotic transabdominal preperitoneal were noted. Open groin hernia repair had more American Society of Anesthesiologists score 4 (52, 3%) patients (P < .001). A painful bulge was the most common indication (>85%). Operating room time >2 hours was more significant in the robotic transabdominal preperitoneal group (123, 8%; P < .001). Seroma rate was higher in the laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (134, 8%; P < .001). A 1-year analysis had 1,103 patients. Hematoma, surgical site infection, readmission, reoperation, and hernia recurrence at 30 days or 1 year did not differ, with an overall recurrence rate of 6% (n = 67) at 1 year (P = .33). In patients with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, the robotic approach had lower rates of surgical site occurrence (n = 12, 4%; P = .002) and seroma (n = 5, 2%; P < .001) compared with the other groups. When evaluating recurrence 1 year after surgery, the robotic transabdominal preperitoneal group had 10% versus 18% open groin hernia repair, 11% laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, and 18% laparoscopic total extraperitoneal, but it was not statistically significant (P = .53).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in readmission, reoperation, and surgical site infection among the surgical techniques at 30 days. However, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal was associated with more seromas. Hernia recurrence at 1 year was similar across groups; the robotic approach had the lowest recurrence rate among all 3 repairs but did not reach statistical significance. The robotic approach performed better in patients with a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 for surgical site occurrence and seroma than in other surgical techniques.

Meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair for inguinal hernia

BACKGROUND

Inguinal hernia is a common global disease. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal repair (RTAPP) and laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair (LTAPP) for inguinal hernia.

METHODS

We conducted a thorough search in Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed for relevant clinical studies. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, the quality of selected studies was assessed using the Jadad scale for randomized controlled studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of ten studies were included, comprising two randomized controlled studies and eight non-randomized controlled studies. Meta-analysis results revealed no statistically significant differences between the RTAPP group and the LTAPP group regarding hospital stay [MD = 0.21 days, 95% CI (-0.09, 0.51), P = 0.17], incidence of seroma [OR = 0.85, 95% CI(0.45, 1.59), P = 0.61], overall complication rate [OR = 1.22, 95% CI(0.68, 2.18), P = 0.51], readmission rate [OR = 1.31, 95% CI(0.23, 7.47), P = 0.76], and recurrence rate [OR = 0.82, 95% CI(0.22, 3.07), P = 0.77]. However, the RTAPP group had longer operation time compared to the LTAPP group [MD = 14.02 minutes, 95% CI (6.65, 21.39), P = 0.0002], and the cost of the RTAPP procedure was higher than that of the LTAPP procedure [MD = $4.17 thousand, 95% CI (2.59, 5.76), P<0.00001].

CONCLUSION

RTAPP for inguinal hernia is a safe and feasible approach, however, it is associated with increased operation time and treatment costs.

Abdominal Wall Hernias-State of the Art of Laparoscopic versus Robotic Surgery

Abdominal wall hernia repair, a common surgical procedure, includes various techniques to minimize postoperative complications and enhance outcomes. This review focuses on the comparison between laparoscopic and robotic approaches in treating inguinal and ventral hernias, presenting the ongoing situation of this topic. A systematic search identified relevant studies comparing laparoscopic and robotic approaches for inguinal and ventral hernias. Randomized control trials, retrospective, and prospective studies published after 1 January 2000, were included. Search terms such as hernia, inguinal, ventral, laparoscopy, robotic, and surgery were used. A total of 23 articles were included for analysis. Results indicated similar short-term outcomes for robotic and laparoscopic techniques in inguinal hernia repair, with robotic groups experiencing less postoperative pain. However, longer operative times and higher costs were associated with robotic repair. Robotic ventral hernia repair demonstrated potential benefits, including shorter hospital stay, lower recurrence and lower reoperation rates. While robotic surgery offers advantages such as shorter hospital stays, faster recovery, and less postoperative pain, challenges including costs and training requirements need consideration. The choice between laparoscopic and robotic approaches for abdominal wall hernias should be tailored based on individual surgeon expertise and resource availability, emphasizing a balanced evaluation of benefits and challenges.

Nationwide analysis of laparoscopic groin hernia repair in Italy from 2015 to 2020

Since its introduction, the minimally invasive treatment of groin hernias has become widely accepted as a viable alternative to open surgery. Still, the rates and reasons for its adoption vary highly among countries and the regions within a country. After almost thirty years since its introduction, its spread is still limited. The present study, conducted under the auspices of AGENAS (Italian National Agency for Regional Services), aims at giving a snapshot of the spreading of minimally invasive and robotic techniques for the treatment of groin hernia in Italy. This study is retrospective, with data covering the period from 1st January 2015 to 31st December 2020. AGENAS provided data using the operation and diagnosis codes used at discharge and reported in the International Classification of Diseases 9th revision (ICD9 2002 version). Admissions performed on an outpatient basis, i.e., without an overnight stay of at least one night in hospital, were excluded. A total of 33,925 laparoscopic hernia repairs were performed during the considered period. Overall, a slight increase in the number of procedures performed was observed from 2015 to 2019, with a mean annual change of 8.60% (CI: 6.46-10.74; p < 0.0001). The number of laparoscopic procedures dropped in 2020, and when considering the whole period, the mean annual change was - 0.98% (CI: - 7.41-5.45; p < 0.0001). Urgent procedures ranged from 335 in 2015 to 508 in 2020 referring to absolute frequencies, and from 0.87% to 9.8% in relative frequencies of overall procedures in 2017 and 2020, respectively (mean = 4.51%; CI = 3.02%-6%; p < 0.001). The most relevant observation that could be made according to our analysis was that the adoption of the laparoscopic approach knew a slow but steady increase from 2015 onward.