Comparison of perioperative and mid-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair

Introduction and Short-Term Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Transabdominal Preperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair at a Municipal Hospital by a Robotic Surgery Novice: A Single-Center, Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (RTAPP) has been rapidly gaining popularity. However, RTAPP is currently limited to university hospitals and large medical centers and is performed mainly by experts in robotic surgery in Japan. In this study, we report the introduction of RTAPP at a municipal hospital by a robotic surgery novice and its short-term outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed the data of patients with inguinal hernias who underwent RTAPP performed by a single surgeon between November 2023 and May 2024 and evaluated its safety and short-term outcomes. A comparative study was conducted using laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (LTAPP) performed by the same surgeon.

RESULTS

We identified 13 lesions in 11 patients (unilateral in nine; bilateral in two) in the RTAPP group. The median operative time for unilateral cases was 137 (interquartile range [IQR], 75-200) min, with a console time of 98 (IQR, 40-156) min. The time for dissection, mesh placement, and peritoneal suturing was 67 (IQR, 44-79), 5 (IQR, 5-7), and 11 (IQR, 11-15) min, respectively. To date, no complications or recurrence has been observed in any of these cases. No significant difference in operational time was observed for unilateral cases between the RTAPP and LTAPP groups (137 min vs. 104; p = 0.129).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that RTAPP is safe and feasible, even at a municipal hospital, by a robotic surgery novice. Moreover, RTAPP is comparable to LTAPP in terms of performance.

Robotic minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair with the Dexter robotic system™: A prospective multicenter clinical investigation

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (rTAPP) has been established with various robotic platforms. The Dexter robotic system is an open platform consisting of a sterile surgeon's console, two robotic instrument arms, and one robotic endoscope arm. This study aimed to confirm the perioperative and early postoperative safety and clinical performance of the Dexter system in patients undergoing primary transperitoneal inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

The primary objectives of this multicenter study conducted at three centers in France, Germany, and Switzerland were to document the successful completion of rTAPP procedures and the occurrence of serious adverse events (Clavien-Dindo grades III-V), device-related events up to 30 days post-surgery. The procedures were performed by three surgeons with varying levels of experience in robotic systems.

RESULTS

50 patients with a median age of 62.5 years (IQR 51.0-72.0) and BMI of 25.1 kg/cm2 (IQR 23.5-28.7), respectively, underwent inguinal hernia repair (33 unilateral, 17 bilateral). All surgeries were successfully completed using three standard laparoscopy trocars. There were no conversions to open surgery, intraoperative complications or device deficiencies. The median skin-to-skin operative time was 50 min (IQR 45-60) for unilateral hernias and 96 min (IQR 84-105) for bilateral hernias. The median console time was 30 min (IQR 26-41) for unilateral and 66 min (IQR 60-77) for bilateral hernias. Twenty-six patients were discharged on the day of surgery, and 22 on postoperative day 1.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the use of the Dexter system in rTAPP was feasible and safe in multicenter cohorts, with operative times consistent with the literature on other robotic platforms. Our data demonstrated the accessibility of this new robotic approach, even when adopted by surgeons new to robotics. The Dexter system emerged as a valuable device in the hernia repair toolkit for both experienced robotic surgeons and those new to the field.

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.

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.

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.

Impact of COVID-19 on clinical outcomes of robotic inguinal hernia repair

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical impact of the clinical outcomes of robotic inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RIHR 2 years before and after March 10, 2020, were included in this retrospective study and assigned accordingly to the pre- or post-COVID group. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative variables including patients' demographics, hernia characteristics, complications, and hernia recurrence rates were compared between groups.

RESULTS

183 (94.5% male) and 141 (96.4% male) patients were assigned to the pre- and post-COVID groups, respectively. Patient demographics and medical comorbidities did not differ between groups. Operative time was approximately 40 min longer in the post-COVID group (p < 0.001) with higher rates of bilateral IHR (pre-COVID: 30.1% vs. post-COVID: 46.4%, p = 0.003). Mesh material differed between groups with predominance of polyester mesh in the pre-COVID group vs. polypropylene in the post-COVID one. Median hospital length of stay (LOS) was 0 days in both groups, and same-day discharge rates were 93.4% pre-pandemic and 92.8% post-pandemic (p = 0.09). There were no pulmonary complications recorded in either group or no cases of COVID-19 detected within two weeks postoperatively in the post-COVID group. Seromas were more frequent in the post-COVID group (pre-COVID: 2 vs. post-COVID: 8, p = 0.018) and no hernia recurrences were recorded.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to describe the impact of COVID-19 on RIHR. Clinical outcomes and hernia-specific complications were not impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.