Open versus robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (R-TAPP) inguinal hernia repair: a multicenter matched analysis of clinical outcomes

Open vs. robot-assisted preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. Are they truly clinically different?

INTRODUCTION

Inguinal hernia repair lacks a standard repair technique, with laparo-endoscopic and open preperitoneal methods showing similar outcomes. Despite higher costs, the popularity of robotic surgery is on the rise, driven by technological advantages. Controversies persist in comparing open repair techniques with the robotic approach, given contradictory results. The objective of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes, including complications, chronic pain, and recurrence, between open and robotic-assisted preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study encompassed patients undergoing elective inguinal hernia repair in a specialized unit, employing both open preperitoneal and robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches from September 2018 to May 2023. Comparative analysis of short- and long-term outcomes between these techniques was conducted. Additionally, multivariate logistic regression was employed to explore predictors of postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 308 patients met the inclusion criteria. 198 (64%) patients underwent surgery using an open preperitoneal approach and 110 (36%) using robot-assisted laparoscopy. Patients in the robot-assisted group were younger (P = 0.006) and had fewer comorbidities (P < 0.001). There were no differences between the groups in terms of postoperative complications (P = 0.133), chronic pain (P = 0.463) or recurrence (P = 0.192). Multivariate analysis identified ASA ≥ III (OR, 1.763; 95%CI, 1.068-3.994; P = 0.027) and inguinoscrotal hernias (OR, 2.371, 95%CI, 1.407-3.944; P = 0.001) as risk factors of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Both open preperitoneal and robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches show similar outcomes for complications, chronic pain, and recurrence when performed by experienced surgeons. The open preperitoneal approach, with its quicker operative time, may be advantageous for high-comorbidity cases. Treatment choice should consider patient factors, surgeon experience, and healthcare resources.

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.

Comparison of BMI on operative time and complications of robotic inguinal hernia repair at a VA medical center

BACKGROUND

BMI is a risk factor for recurrence and post-operative complications in both open and laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal approach (TEP) repair. Robotic surgery using the transabdominal preperitoneal approach (TAPP) is a safe and viable option for inguinal hernia repair (IHR). The objective of this study is to determine how difference in BMI influences rate of operative time, complications, and rate of recurrence in a robotic TAPP IHR.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent robotic inguinal hernia repair between 2012 and 2019 at a Veterans Health Administration facility (N = 304). The operating time, outcomes, and overall morbidity and mortality for robotic IHR were compared between three different BMI Groups. These groups were divided into: "Underweight/Normal Weight" (BMI < 25) n = 102, "Pre-Obese" (BMI 25-29.9) n = 120, and "Obese" (BMI 30 +) n = 82.

RESULTS

The average operating time of a bilateral IHR by BMI group was 83.5, 98.4, and 97.8 min for BMIs < 25, 25-29.9, and 30 +, respectively. Operating time was lower in the Underweight/Normal BMI group compared to the Pre-Obese group (p = 0.006) as well as the Obese group (p = 0.001). For unilateral repair, the average operation length by group was 65.2, 70.9, and 85.6 min for BMIs < 25, 25-29.9, and 30 +, respectively, demonstrating an increased time for Obese compared to Underweight/Normal BMI (p = 0.001) and for Obese compared to Pre-Obese (p = 0.01). Demographic/comorbidity variables were not significantly different, except for a higher percentage of white patients in the Underweight/Normal BMI group compared to the Pre-Obese and Obese groups (p = 0.02 and p = 0.0003). There was no significant difference in complications or recurrence.

CONCLUSION

BMI has a significant impact on the operating time of both unilateral and bilateral robotic hernia repair. Despite this increased operative time, BMI group did not differ significantly in postoperative outcomes or in recurrence rates.

A retrospective review of a large series of groin hernia patients operated with robotically assisted laparoscopic technique (R-TAPP)

We have reviewed the patient outcome and the feasibility of robotically assisted inguinal hernia repair (R-TAPP) from the first 4-years period after its introduction in our department in a Scandinavian Public Health hospital. A total of 226 hernia repairs were performed in 195 patients (31 bilateral hernias). 160 patients had primary hernias, whereas 35 had recurrent hernias. Of the recurrent hernias, three had recurred twice. The majority of the hernias were in the right groin (53.3%) and the lateral location was the most common (65.0%). The hernia was scrotal in 29 cases. The mean operation time was significantly reduced throughout the observation period for our cohort, i.e. from 81 to 57 min (p < 0.001). The operation time was 27 min faster (mean value) in unilateral vs bilateral hernias and 19 min faster (mean value) in primary vs residual hernias. There were no statistically significant differences in operation time between lateral and medial hernias, and no differences in operation time between the obese and normal-weight cases. We experienced four severe per-operative complications (4/226; 1.8%): two cases of abdominal wall bleeding subsequently undergoing intravascular coiling, one perforation of the urinary bladder and one perforation of small bowel that were both closed by direct suture intraoperatively. There were no conversions to laparoscopy or open procedure. One hernia recurred during the observation period. Our findings suggest that the R-TAPP procedure in a Scandinavian Public Health hospital’s surgical department is both safe and feasible.

Robot-assisted groin hernia repair is primarily performed by specialized surgeons: a scoping review

Surgical residents routinely participate in open and laparoscopic groin hernia repairs. The increasing popularity of robot-assisted groin hernia repair could lead to an educational loss for residents. We aimed to explore the involvement of surgical specialists and surgical residents, i.e., non-specialists, in robot-assisted groin hernia repair. The scoping review was reported according to PRISMA-ScR guideline. A protocol was uploaded at Open Science Framework, and a systematic search was conducted in four databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science. Included studies had to report on robot-assisted groin hernia repairs. Data charting was conducted in duplicate. Of the 67 included studies, 85% of the studies described that the robot-assisted groin hernia repair was performed by a surgical specialist. The rest of the studies had no description of the primary operating surgeon. Only 13% of the included studies reported that a resident attended the robot-assisted groin hernia repair. Thus, robot-assisted groin hernia repair was mainly performed by surgical specialists, and robot-assisted groin hernia repair therefore seems to be underutilized to educate surgical residents.

Spin is present in the majority of articles evaluating robot-assisted groin hernia repair: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The number of scientific articles published each year is increasing, resulting in greater competition to get work published. Spin is defined as specific reporting strategies used to distort the readers' interpretation of results so that they are viewed more favorable. However, prevalence of spin in studies comparing robot-assisted groin hernia repair with traditional methods is unknown.

OBJECTIVES/AIM

To determine the frequency and extent of spin in studies assessing robot-assisted groin hernia repair.

METHODS

This systematic review was reported according to PRISMA guidelines, and a protocol was registered at PROSPERO before data extraction. Database search included PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central.

RESULTS

Of 35 included studies, spin was present in 57%. Within these, 95% had spin present in the abstract and 80% in the conclusion of the article. There was no association between study size and spin (p > 0.05). However, presence of spin in studies positively minded towards robot-assisted hernia repair was higher (p < 0.001) compared with those against or being neutral in their view of the procedure. Furthermore, being funded by or receiving grants from Intuitive Surgical were associated with a higher prevalence of spin (p < 0.05) compared with those who were not.

CONCLUSION

Spin was found to be common in articles reporting on robot-assisted groin hernia repair, and presence of spin was higher in studies funded by or receiving grants from the robot company. This suggests that readers should be cautious when reading similar literature.

Current status and future perspectives of robotic inguinal hernia repair

With more than 5500 da Vinci Surgical System (DVSS) installed worldwide, the robotic approach for general surgery, including for inguinal hernia repair, is gaining popularity in the USA. However, in many countries outside the USA, robotic surgery is performed at only a few advanced institutions; therefore, its advantages over the open or laparoscopic approaches for inguinal hernia repair are unclear. Several retrospective studies have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of robotic inguinal hernia repair, but there is still no firm evidence to support the superiority of robotic surgery for this procedure or its long-term clinical outcomes. Robotic surgery has the potential to overcome the disadvantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery through appropriate utilization of technological advantages, such as wristed instruments, tremor filtering, and high-resolution 3D images. The potential benefits of robotic inguinal hernia repair are lower rates of complications or recurrence than open and laparoscopic surgery, with less postoperative pain, and a rapid learning curve for surgeons. In this review, we summarize the current status and future prospects of robotic inguinal hernia repair and discuss the issues associated with this procedure.

Robotic hernia surgery I. English version : Robotic inguinal hernia repair (r‑TAPP). Video report and results of a series of 302 hernia operations

The treatment of inguinal hernias with open and minimally invasive procedures has reached a high standard in terms of outcome over the past 30 years. However, there is still need for further improvement, mainly in terms of reduction of postoperative seroma, chronic pain, and recurrence. This video article presents the endoscopic anatomy of the groin with regard to robotic transabdominal preperitoneal patch plasty (r‑TAPP) and illustrates the surgical steps of r‑TAPP with respective video sequences. The results of a cohort study of 302 consecutive hernias operated by r‑TAPP are presented and discussed in light of the added value of the robotic technique, including advantages for surgical training. r‑TAPP is the natural evolution of conventional TAPP and has the potential to become a new standard as equipment availability increases and material costs decrease. Future studies will also have to refine the multifaceted added value of r‑TAPP with new parameters.

Minimally invasive management of de Garengeot hernia with staged robotic hernia repair

De Garengeot hernia is a rare phenomenon describing the migration of the appendix into a femoral hernia sac. Many repair strategies have been described although an open inguinal approach with suture repair is the most common technique. Despite strong evidence that mesh limits recurrence, most forgo mesh use in the presence of appendicitis for fear of contamination. We report a case in a 68-year-old man managed completely with minimally invasive strategies. We performed a staged laparoscopic appendectomy followed by robotic hernia repair with polypropylene mesh. This is the first described two-stage minimally invasive approach and the first report demonstrating the feasibility of robotic hernia repair in the setting of de Garengeot hernia. It is our opinion that using a staged approach may encourage mesh repair by minimising the risk of implant contamination. Furthermore, we believe a fully minimally invasive technique may result in improved outcomes.

[Robotic hernia surgery : Part I: Robotic inguinal hernia repair (r‑TAPP). Video report and results of a series of 302 hernia operations]

The treatment of inguinal hernias with open and minimally invasive procedures has reached a high standard in terms of outcome over the past 30 years. However, there is still need for further improvement, mainly in terms of reduction of postoperative seroma, chronic pain, and recurrence. This video article presents the endoscopic anatomy of the groin with regard to robotic transabdominal preperitoneal patch plasty (r‑TAPP) and illustrates the surgical steps of r‑TAPP with respective video sequences. The results of a cohort study of 302 consecutive hernias operated by r‑TAPP are presented and discussed in light of the added value of the robotic technique, including advantages for surgical training. r‑TAPP is the natural evolution of conventional TAPP and has the potential to become a new standard as equipment availability increases and material costs decrease. Future studies will also have to refine the multifaceted added value of r‑TAPP with new parameters.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes between non-obese and obese patients undergoing robotic inguinal hernia repair: a propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

Despite the limited research in support of robotic inguinal hernia repair (RIHR), it is an increasingly adopted technique in surgical practice. While a major risk factor for the development of ventral hernias and subsequent complications, obesity in RIHR has not been investigated. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of RIHR between obese and non-obese patients.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data surrounding RIHRs performed at a single center between 2013 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into non-obese (< 30 kg/m²) and obese (≥ 30 kg/m²) groups, and preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were compared in unmatched and matched groups, derived using a 1:2 propensity score match (PSM).

RESULTS

From a total of 547 patients, 414 were non-obese and 133 were obese. A PSM analysis, accounting for confounding preoperative variables and risk factors, stratified these into 262 patients for the non-obese group and 131 patients for the obese group. Although the obese group's operative times were longer on average (57 min vs. 51 min; p = 0.007), this difference did not persist after matching. The only significant difference in operative variables was a higher rate of cord lipomas in the obese group. Postoperative variables, including wound complications, readmissions, and recurrence, were similar across unmatched and matched groups.

CONCLUSION

In the first study to investigate the influence of obesity in RIHR, no differences in outcomes were found between obese and non-obese patients. This procedure can be safely performed in obese individuals, however, more studies comparing body mass index (BMI) classes are needed to establish whether a prohibitive BMI threshold exists for RIHR.

Trends and outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic inguinal hernia repair in the veterans affairs system

PURPOSE

Robotic inguinal hernia repair (RHR) is an evolving technique but is comparatively expensive and has yet to show superior outcomes versus open (OHR) or laparoscopic (LHR) approaches. The utilization and clinical outcomes of RHR have not been reported within the veterans affairs (VA) system. This study analyzes trends in utilization and 30-day post-operative outcomes between OHR, LHR, and RHR in veterans.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of patients that underwent inguinal herniorrhaphy using the Veterans Affairs Quality Improvement Program database. Multivariable analysis of outcomes was performed adjusting for pre-operative confounding covariates between OHR, LHR, and RHR. Trends in utilization, complication rates, and operative times were also reported.

RESULTS

From 2008-2019, 124,978 cases of inguinal herniorrhaphy were identified: 100,880 (80.7%) OHR, 18,035 (14.4%) LHR, and 6063 (4.9%) RHR. Compared to LHR, RHR was associated with 4.94 times higher odds of complications, 100 min longer mean operative time, and 1.5 days longer median length of stay (LOS). Compared to OHR, RHR was associated with 5.92 times higher odds of complications, 57 min longer mean operative time, and 1.1 days longer median LOS. Utilization of RHR and LHR significantly increased over time. RHR complication rates decreased over time (2008: 20.8% to 2019: 3.2%) along with mean operative times (2008: 4.9 h to 2019: 2.8 h; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

While this study demonstrated inferior outcomes after RHR, the temporal trends are encouraging. This may be due to increased surgeon experience with robotics. Further prospective data will elucidate the role of RHR as this technique increases.

Learning curve of robot-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (rTAPP) inguinal hernia repair: a cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (rTAPP-IHR) is a safe and feasible approach for hernias of varying etiology. We aim to present a single surgeon's learning curve (LC) of this technique based on operative times, while accounting for bilaterality and complexity.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort analysis of patients who underwent rTAPP-IHR over a period of 5 years. Patients who underwent primary, recurrent, and complex (previous posterior repair, previous prostatectomy, scrotal, incarcerated) repairs were included. Cumulative and risk-adjusted cumulative sum analyses (CUSUM and RA-CUSUM) were used to depict the evolution of skin-to-skin times and complications/surgical site events (SSEs) with time, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 371 patients were included in the study. Mean skin-to-skin times were stratified according to four subgroups: unilateral non-complex (46.8 min), unilateral complex (63.2 min), bilateral non-complex (70.9 min), and bilateral complex (102 min). A CUSUM-LC was then plotted using each procedures difference in operative time from its subgroup mean. The peak of the plot occurred at case number 138, which was used as a transition between 'early' and 'late' phases. The average operative time for the late phase was 15.9 min shorter than the early phase (p < 0.001). The RA-CUSUM, plotted using the weight of case complexity and unilateral/bilateral status, also showed decreasing SSE rates after the completion of 138 cases (early phase: 8.8% vs. late phase: 2.2%, p = 0.008). Overall complication rates did not differ significantly between the two phases.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that regardless of bilateral or complex status, rTAPP operative times and SSE rates gradually decreased after completing 138 procedures. Previous laparoscopic experience, robotic team efficiency, and surgical knowledge are important considerations for a surgeon's LC.

Robotic Inguinal vs Transabdominal Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: The RIVAL Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Despite rapid adoption of the robotic platform for inguinal hernia repair in the US, to date, no level I trials have ever compared robotic inguinal hernia repair to laparoscopic repair. This multicenter randomized clinical trial is the first to compare the robotic platform to laparoscopic approach for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair.

Objective

To determine whether the robotic approach to inguinal hernia repair results in improved postoperative outcomes compared with traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical pilot study was conducted from April 2016 to April 2019, with a follow-up duration of 30 days in 6 academic and academic-affiliated sites. Enrolled in this study were 113 patients with a unilateral primary or recurrent inguinal hernia. After exclusions 102 remained for analysis.

Interventions

Standard laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair or robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Main outcomes included postoperative pain, health-related quality of life, mobility, wound morbidity, and cosmesis. Secondary outcomes included cost, surgeon ergonomics, and surgeon mental workload. A primary outcome was not selected because this study was designed as a pilot study. The hypothesis was formulated prior to data collection.

Results

A total of 102 patients were included in the study (54 in the laparoscopic group, mean [SD] age, 57.2 [13.3] years and 48 [88.9%] male; 48 in the robotic group, mean [SD] age, 56.1 [14.1] years and 44 [91.6%] male). There were no differences at the preoperative, 1-week, or 30-day points between the groups in terms of wound events, readmissions, pain as measured by the Visual Analog Scale, or quality of life as measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. Compared with traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair was associated with longer median (interquartile range) operative times (75.5 [59.0-93.8] minutes vs 40.5 [29.2-63.8] minutes, respectively; P < .001), higher median (interquartile range) cost ($3258 [$2568-$4118] vs $1421 [$1196-$1930], respectively; P < .001), and higher mean (SD) frustration levels on the NASA Task Load Index Scale (range, 1-100, with lower scores indicating lower cognitive workload) (32.7 [23.5] vs 20.1 [19.2], respectively; P = .004). There were no differences in ergonomics of the surgeons between the groups as measured by the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment instrument.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this study showed no clinical benefit to the robotic approach to straightforward inguinal hernia repair compared with the laparoscopic approach. The robotic approach incurred higher costs and more operative time compared with the laparoscopic approach, with added surgeon frustration and no ergonomic benefit to surgeons.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02816658.

Robotic inguinal hernia repair: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of RHR's efficiency and safety, in addition to comparison between open and laparoscopic techniques.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted from 2000 to 2020 including studies reporting on their centre's outcomes for robotic hernial repairs. A meta-analysis was conducted. For continuous data, Mantel-Haenszel chi-squares test was used and inverse variance was used for dichotomous data.

RESULTS

In total, 19 studies were included. A total of 8987 patients were treated for hernia repairs, 4248 underwent open repairs, 2521 had robotic repairs and 1495 had laparoscopic repair. Cumulative analysis of robotic series: The overall average operative time was 90.8 min (range 25-180.7 min). The overall conversation rate was 0.63% (10/1596). The overall complication rate was 10.1% (248/2466). The overall recurrence rate was 1.2% (14/1218). Readmission rate was 1.6% (28/1750). Comparative meta-analysis outcomes include robotic versus open and robotic versus laparoscopic. Robotic versus open: The robotic group had significantly longer operative times and less readmission rates. There was no difference between the two groups regarding complications, post-operative pain occurrence and hernia recurrence rates. Robotic versus laparoscopic: The robotic group had significantly longer operative times and less complications. There was no difference regarding post-operative pain occurrence, hernia recurrence rates or readmission rates.

CONCLUSION

Robotic hernia repair is a safe and efficient technique with minimal complications and a short learning curve; however, it remains inferior to the standard open technique. It does, however, have a role in minimally invasive technique centres. A multicentre randomized control trial is required comparing robotic, open and laparoscopic techniques.

Economic assessment of starting robot-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in a single-centre retrospective comparative study: the EASTER study

Background

There has been a rapid adoption of robot-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in the USA, despite a lack of proven clinical advantage and higher material cost. No studies have been published regarding the cost and outcome of robotic inguinal hernia surgery in a European Union setting.

Methods

A retrospective comparative study was performed on the early outcome and costs related to laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, with either conventional or robot-assisted surgery.

Results

The study analysed 676 patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (272 conventional and 404 robotic repairs). Conventional laparoscopic and robotic repair groups were comparable in terms of duration of surgery (57.6 versus 56.2 min respectively; P = 0.224), intraoperative complication rate (1.1 versus 1.2 per cent; P = 0.990), in-hospital complication rate (4.4 versus 4.5 per cent; P = 0.230) and readmission rate (3.3 versus 1.2 per cent; P = 0.095). There was a significant difference in hospital stay in favour of the robotic approach (P = 0.014), with more patients treated on an outpatient basis in the robotic group (59.2 per cent versus 70.0 per cent for conventional repair). At 4-week follow-up, equal numbers of seromas or haematomas were recorded in the conventional laparoscopic and robotic groups (13.3 versus 15.7 per cent respectively; P = 0.431), but significantly more umbilical wound infections were seen in the conventional group (3.0 per cent versus 0 per cent in the robotic group; P = 0.001). Robotic inguinal hernia repair was significantly more expensive overall, with a mean cost of €2612 versus €1963 for the conventional laparoscopic approach (mean difference €649; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Robot-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair was significantly more expensive than conventional laparoscopy. More patients were treated as outpatients in the robotic group. Postoperative complications were infrequent and mild.

Learning curve of robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal repair (rTAPP) for inguinal hernias

BACKGROUND

Learning curves describe the rate of performance improvements according to the surgeon's caseload, followed by a plateau where limited additional improvements are observed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the learning curve for robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal repair (rTAPP) for inguinal hernias in surgeons already experienced in laparoscopic TAPP.

METHODS

The study was approved by local ethic committee. Male patients undergoing rTAPP for inguinal hernia from October 2017 to December 2019 at the Bellinzona Regional Hospital were selected from a prospective database. Demographic and clinical data, including operative time, conversion to laparoscopic or open surgery, intra- and postoperative complications were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 170 rTAPP were performed by three surgeons in 132 patients, and mean age was 60.1 ± 13.7 years. The cumulative summation (CUSUM) test showed a significant operative time reduction after the 43^rd operation, once the 90% proficiency on the logarithmic tendency line was achieved. The corrected operative time resulted 71.1 ± 22.0 vs. 60.8 ± 13.5 min during and after the learning curve (p = 0.011). Only one intraoperative complication occurred during the learning curve and required an orchiectomy. Postoperatively, three complications (one seroma, one hematoma, and one mesh infection) required invasive interventions during the learning curve, while no cases were recorded after it (p = 0.312).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that the rTAPP, performed by experienced laparoscopists, has a learning curve which requires 43 inguinal hernia repairs to achieve 90% proficiency and to significantly reduce the operative time.

Transumbilical Single-port Robotically Assisted Nipple-sparing Mastectomy: A Cadaveric Study

The authors performed a transumbilical, single-port robotically assisted, nipple-sparing mastectomy on a cadaveric model to assess technical feasibility. Surgeon-controlled, robotic-wristed instrumentation, as well as 3-dimensional high definition (HD) vision allowed the entire dissection to be performed through a single incision placed in the umbilicus. The technique warrants further exploration and development before any application in clinical applied research.

Evaluating outcomes for robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair in males with prior urologic surgery: a propensity-matched analysis from a national database

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists regarding the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs in patients with a history of prior urologic pelvic operations (PUPO), such as a prostatectomy, which causes scarring and disruption of the retropubic tissue planes. Our study sought to examine whether a history of PUPO impacts surgical outcomes in males undergoing robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

The Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC) database was queried to identify male patients who underwent a robotic inguinal hernia repair with 30-day follow-up. A sub-query was performed to identify subjects within the cohort with a documented history of PUPO. Propensity score matching was subsequently utilized to evaluate for differences in intra-operative complications and short-term post-operative outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 1664 male patients underwent robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair, of whom 65 (3.9%) had a PUPO. After a 3:1 propensity score matching with hernia repair patients who did not have prior procedures, 195 (11.7%) males were included in the comparison cohort. There were no documented vascular, bladder, or spermatic cord injuries in either group. There was no difference in 30-day readmission rate (5% vs. 3%, respectively, p = 0.41). No hernia recurrences were recorded within the 30-day follow-up period in either group. There was no statistical difference in post-operative complications (including seroma formation, hematoma, and surgical site occurrences) between the two groups (14% vs. 8%, p = 0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

In an experienced surgeon's hands, robotic-assisted minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair may be an alternative to open repair in patients with PUPO who were previously thought to be poor minimally invasive surgical candidates.

Safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted groin hernia repair

Robotic surgical technology has grown in popularity and applicability, since its conception with emerging uses in general surgery. The robot's contribution of increased stability and dexterity may be beneficial in technically challenging surgeries, namely, inguinal hernia repair. The aim of this project is to contribute to the growing body of literature on robotic technology for inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) by sharing our experience with RIHR at a large, academic institution. We performed a retrospective chart review spanning from March 2015 to April 2018 on all patients who had undergone RIHR at our university hospital. Extracted data include preoperative demographics, operative features, and postoperative outcomes. Data were analyzed with particular focus on complications, including hernia recurrence. A total of 43 patients were included, 40 of which were male. Mean patient age was 56 (range 18-85 years) and mean patient BMI was 26.4 (range 17.5-42.3). Bilateral hernias were diagnosed in 13 patients. All of the patients received transabdominal approaches, and all but one received placement of synthetic polypropylene mesh. There was variety in mesh placement with 23 patients receiving suture fixation and 14 receiving tack fixation. Several patients received a combination of suture, tacks, and surgical glue. Mean patient in-room time was 4.0 h, mean operative time was 2.9 h, and mean robotic dock time was 2.0 h. Regarding intraoperative complications, there was one bladder injury, which was discovered intraoperatively and repaired primarily. Same-day discharges were achieved in 32 patients (74.4%) of patients. One patient was admitted overnight for management of urinary retention. Additional ten patients were admitted for observation. Post-operatively, none of the cases resulted in wound infections. Eleven patients developed seromas and one patient was diagnosed with a groin hematoma. Median follow-up was 37.5 days, and one recurrence was reported during this time. The recurrent hernia in this case was initially discovered during a separate case and was repaired with temporary mesh. The use of the robot is safe and effective and should be considered an acceptable approach to inguinal hernia repair. Future prospective studies will help define which patients will benefit most from this technology.

Robotic-assisted single site (RASS) TAPP: an advantageous choice? : Outcomes of single site robotic groin hernia repair

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) is a valid option for bilateral primary groin hernia and recurrent cases. Robotic approach for inguinal hernia is still debated. The aim of this study is to investigate the potential role of robotic-assisted single site-TAPP (RASS-TAPP) reporting our experience.

METHODS

We performed 44 RASS TAPP in 32 patients from February 2016 to July 2018. Data on patient demographics, type of hernia, operative time, complications, recurrence rate and hospital stay were retrospectively analyzed. Follow-up was scheduled at 1 week, 4 months and 1 year after surgery.

RESULTS

Forty-two hernias were treated in 32 patients (27 M). Mean age was 48.6 years (range 20-67), mean BMI was 26.49 kg/m² (range 16-34.9). Mean operative time was 54.8 min (range 28-150). In two cases (6%) a conversion to laparoscopy was necessary. At 1 week, two scrotal hematomas and four seromas were observed and treated conservatively. At 4 months follow-up, one patient (3.1%) complained temporary pain. No patient had inguinal recurrence or incisional umbilical hernia and chronic pain at 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

RASS TAPP is feasible and safe with a high patient satisfaction. However, the surgeon experiences a technical discomfort due to the conflict of the instrumentation which influences negatively the choice of this approach, despite the better vision and augmented dexterity provided by the robot.

Prospective, multicenter, pairwise analysis of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair with open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: early results from the Prospective Hernia Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare peri-operative outcomes through 30 days, including pain and quality of life (QOL) through 3 months across three cohorts of inguinal hernia repair (IHR) patients (robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open IHR).

METHODS

The Prospective Hernia Study is an ongoing, multicenter, comparative, open-label analysis of clinical and patient-reported outcomes from robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) versus open and RAS versus laparoscopic IHR procedures. Patient responses to the Carolinas Comfort Scale (CCS) questionnaire provided QOL outcomes.

RESULTS

504 enrolled patients underwent unilateral or bilateral IHR (RAS, n = 159; open, n = 190; laparoscopic, n = 155) at 17 medical institutions from May 2016 through December 2018. Propensity score matching provided a balanced comparison: RAS versus open (n = 112 each) and RAS versus laparoscopic (n = 80 each). Overall, operative times were significantly different between the RAS and laparoscopic cases (83 vs. 65 min; p < 0.001). Fewer RAS patients required prescription pain medication than either open (49.5% vs. 80.0%; p < 0.001) or laparoscopic patients (45.3% vs. 65.4%; p = 0.013). Median number of prescription pain pills taken differed for RAS vs. open (0.5 vs. 15.5; p = 0.001) and were comparable for RAS vs laparoscopic (7.0 vs. 6.0; p = 0.482) among patients taking prescribed pain medication. Time to return to normal activities differed for RAS vs. open (3 vs. 4 days; p = 0.005) and were comparable for RAS vs. laparoscopic (4 vs. 4 days; p = 0.657). Median CCS scores through 3 months were comparable for the three approaches. Postoperative complication rates for the three groups also were comparable. One laparoscopic case was converted to open.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that IHR can be performed effectively with the robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, or open approaches. There was no difference in the median number of prescription pain medication pills taken between the RAS and laparoscopic groups. A difference was observed in the overall number of patients reporting the need to take prescription pain medication. Comparable operative times were observed for RAS unilateral IHR patients compared to open unilateral IHR patients; however, operative times for RAS overall and bilateral subjects were longer than for open patients. Operative times were longer overall for RAS patients compared to laparoscopic patients; however, there was no difference in conversion and complication rate in the RAS vs. laparoscopic groups or the complication rate in the RAS vs. open group. Time to return to normal activities for RAS IHR patients was comparable to that of laparoscopically repaired patients and significantly sooner compared to open IHR patients.

Robotic Approach to Outpatient Inguinal Hernia Repair

BACKGROUND

Robotics offers improved ergonomics, visualization, instrument articulation, and tremor filtration. Disadvantages include startup cost and system breakdown. Surgeon education notwithstanding, we hypothesize that robotic inguinal hernia repair carries minimal advantages over the laparoscopic or open approach.

METHODS

The 2009-2015 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-State Ambulatory Surgery and Services and American Hospital Association Annual Health data sets from Florida were queried for open, laparoscopic, and robotic inguinal hernia repairs. Hospital and patient demographic, financial, and comorbidity data (26 total variables) were evaluated. Data are presented as mean ± SEM; p < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

We identified 103,183 cases (63,375 open, 38,886 laparoscopic, and 922 robotic). Patient characteristics were the following: male, white, aged 51 to 70 years, nongovernmental and not-for-profit hospitals, grouped Charlson Comorbidity Category = 0, private insurance coverage, median income quartile 3 (4 = highest), and routine discharge disposition (all, p < 0.05). Total charges were: $18,261 ± $38 (open), $25,223 ± $60 (laparoscopic), and $45,830 ± $1,023 (robot) (p < 0.0001 robot vs open, robot vs laparoscopic, and laparoscopic vs open). Top factors associated with open procedures (area under the curve 0.785): hospital is investor owned for profit, self-pay, black, Latino, and Medicaid; with laparoscopic procedures (area under the curve 0.771): private insurance, median income quartile 4 (highest), median income quartile 3, median income quartile 2, and nongovernmental, not-for-profit hospitals; and with robotic procedures (area under the curve 0.936): Charlson Comorbidity Category = 2, Charlson Comorbidity Category = 1, median income quartile 3, median income quartile 2, and age.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery has increased charges and is performed in sicker, higher-income patients. The open approach is more apt to be performed in black/Hispanic, self-pay patients, and for-profit hospitals. The role for robotic inguinal hernia repair is undefined.

Design of a comparative outcome analysis of open, laparoscopic, or robotic-assisted incisional or inguinal hernia repair utilizing surgeon experience and a novel follow-up model

BACKGROUND

In a recent publication, the International Guidelines for Groin Hernia Management by the European Hernia Society (EHS) recognized the need to individualize and tailor the surgical approach for hernia repair. There may be different opportunities for optimization of the surgical technique for surgeons performing open, laparoscopic, or robotic-assisted hernia repair. Robotic-assisted hernia repair is a relatively new minimally invasive surgical approach compared to laparoscopic and open repair. Currently, there is a lack of comparative prospective studies designed to evaluate long-term outcomes of patients undergoing robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, or open hernia repair.

MATERIALS & METHODS

This manuscript presents an innovative study design with two study cohorts (incisional and inguinal hernia repair) that contain three arms (robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open). The trial objective is to collect short-term and long-term outcomes for patients undergoing robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, or open hernia repair. The present publication will discuss the trial design, methods used to ensure consistency in surgeon expertise, and provides strategies to obtain long-term (> 3 months) follow-up data for enrolled patients.

RESULTS

One hundred subjects underwent incisional and one hundred underwent inguinal hernia repair at the time of this manuscript. Surgeon experience was analyzed across the three surgical techniques and follow-up compliance was assessed through 1 year. The follow-up completion rates for both study cohorts were >80% for all visits.

CONCLUSIONS

The innovative trial design helped to improve the quality and quantity of long-term follow-up. More innovative options to improve patient retention may be tested in future trials of similar design.

Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Utilization of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair (IHR) has increased in recent years, but randomized or prospective studies comparing outcomes and cost of laparoscopic and Robotic-IHR are still lacking. With conflicting results from only five retrospective series available in the literature comparing the two approaches, the question remains whether current robotic technology provides any added benefits to treat inguinal hernias. We aimed to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of Robotic-IHR versus laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal IHR (Laparoscopic-IHR).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent Robotic-IHR or Laparoscopic-IHR at a dedicated MIS unit in the USA from February 2015 to June 2017. Demographics, anthropometrics, the proportion of bilateral and recurrent hernias, operative details, cost, length of stay, 30-day readmissions and reoperations, and rates and severity of complications were compared.

RESULTS

183 patients had surgery: 45 (24.6%) Robotic-IHR and 138 (75.4%) Laparoscopic-IHR. There were no differences between groups in age, gender, BMI, ASA class, the proportion of bilateral hernias and recurrent hernias, and length of stay. Operative time (Robotic-IHR: 116 ± 36 min, vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 95±44 min, p < 0.01), reoperations (Robotic-IHR: 6.7%, vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 0%, p = 0.01), and readmissions rates were greater for Robotic-IHR. While the overall perioperative complication rate was similar in between groups (Robotic-IHR: 28.9% vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 18.1%, p = 0.14), Robotic-IHR was associated with a significantly greater proportion of grades III and IV complications (Robotic-IHR: 6.7% vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 0%, p = 0.01). Total hospital cost was significantly higher for the Robotic-IHRs ($9993 vs. $5994, p < 0.01). The added cost associated with the robotic device itself was $3106 per case and the total cost of disposable supplies was comparable between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting in which it was studied, the outcomes of Laparoscopic-IHR were significantly superior to the Robotic-IHR, at lower hospital costs. Laparoscopic-IHR remains the preferred minimally invasive surgical approach to treat inguinal hernias.

Robotic inguinal hernia repair: is technology taking over? Systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To examine the current evidence on the therapeutic role and outcomes of robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal Inguinal hernia repair (rTAPP) to better define its risk-benefit ratio and guide clinical decision-making.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were consulted. A Frequentist single-arm study-level random effect meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Twelve studies published between 2015 and 2018 met the inclusion criteria (1645 patients). Patients' age ranged from 16 to 96, the BMI ranged from 19 to 35.6 kg/m², and 86.1% were males. Unilateral hernia repair was performed in 69.6% while bilateral hernia repair was performed in 30.4% of patients. The operations were all conducted using the da Vinci Xi or Si robotic system (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). The rTAPP was successfully completed in 99.4% of patients and the operative time ranged from 45 to 180.4 min. The postoperative follow-up ranged from 16 to 368 days. The estimated pooled prevalence of intraoperative complications and conversion were 0.03% (95% CI 0.00-0.3) and 0.14% (95% CI 0.0-0.5%), respectively. The estimated pooled prevalence of urinary retention, seroma/hematoma, and overall complications were 3.5% (95% CI 1.6-5.8%), 4.1% (95% CI 1.6-7.5%), and 7.4% (95% CI 3.4-10.9%). The estimated pooled prevalence of hernia recurrence was 0.18% (95% CI 0.00-0.84%).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic technology has been progressively entering surgical thinking and gradually changing surgical procedures. Based on the results of the present study, the rTAPP seems feasible, safe, and effective in the short term for patients with unilateral and bilateral inguinal hernias. Further prospective studies and randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.

Minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair is superior to open: a national database review

PURPOSE

Many publications have focused on single-surgeon or single-center data, comparing surgical approach in inguinal hernia repair. This study evaluated outcomes in patients who underwent open (OIHR), laparoscopic (LIHR) or robotic (RIHR) inguinal hernia repair using a national database.

METHODS

The Vizient clinical database was queried using ICD-9 and ICD-10 procedure and diagnosis codes for RIHR, LIHR, and OIHR from 2013 to 2017. Elective procedures classified as minor or moderate risk severity were included. Complications, 30-day readmission, mortality, LOS, and intra-hospital opiate utilization were analyzed using IBM SPSS v.23.0.

RESULTS

3547 patients (OIHR: N = 2413, LIHR: N = 540, RIHR: N = 594) were included in the study. Majority were male (OIHR 84.1%, LIHR 80.4%, RIHR 95.3%), ≥ 51 years (OIHR 81.5%, LIHR 81.7%, RIHR 95.3%), and Caucasian (OIHR 75.7%, LIHR 77.0%, RIHR 81.5%). RIHR had the least overall complications (0.67%) compared to LIHR (4.44%) and OIHR (3.85%), p < 0.05. OIHR had the highest postoperative infection rate (8.33%), versus LIHR (0.56%) and RIHR (0.0%), p < 0.05. OIHR had longer length of stay (3.57 ± 4.1 days) when compared to both groups (LIHR 2.2 ± 2.13 days, RIHR 1.75 ± 1.62 days), p < 0.001. OIHR had higher 30-day readmission rates (3.61%) compared to RIHR (0.84%), p = 0.001. Mortality was similar between groups (OIHR 0.21%, LIHR 0.19%, RIHR 0.17%), p = 0.081. Opiate use was higher with OIHR (96.0%), compared to both LIHR (93.1%), and RIHR (93.8%), p = 0.004.

CONCLUSION

RIHR outcomes were improved compared to OIHR or LIHR. OIHR had the highest rate of opiate use, there was no difference between LIHR and RIHR. Further studies are needed to determine the role of RIHR and to assess whether surgeon or patient selection contributes to outcomes.

Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair: Outcomes and Predictors of Complications

BACKGROUND

The robotic approach to an inguinal hernia has not been compared head to head with the open and laparoscopic techniques in randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, long-term outcomes for robotic inguinal hernia repair (RHR) are lacking. In this study, we compared laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LHR) and RHR with open inguinal hernia repair (OHR) in veteran patients performed by surgeons most familiar with each approach.

METHODS

A retrospective single-institution analysis of 1299 inguinal hernia repairs performed at the VA North Texas Health Care System between 2005 and 2017 was undertaken. Three surgeons performed the operations, each an expert in one approach, and there was no crossover in techniques. A total of 1100 OHRs, 128 LHRs, and 71 RHRs were performed. Univariable analysis was undertaken to determine associations between techniques and outcomes (OHR versus LHR; OHR versus RHR; LHR versus RHR). Setting complications as a dependent variable, multivariable analyses were undertaken to determine an association with complications as well as independent predictors of complications.

RESULTS

Patient demographics were similar among groups except for age that was higher in the OHR cohort. The average follow-up was 5.2 ± 3.4 y. In the present report, recurrence was associated with a higher rate in the RHR versus OHR (5.6% versus 1.7%; P < 0.02), but not in the LHR versus OHR (3.9% versus 1.9%; P = 0.09). Inguinodynia was more likely to occur in both the LHR and RHR compared with the OHR (9.4% and 14.1 versus 1.5%; both P's < 0.001). Urinary retention was also more common in the LHR and RHR than in the OHR (5.5% and 5.6% versus 1.8%, both P's < 0.05) as was the rate of overall complications (34.4% and 38.0% versus 11.2%, both P's < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis showed femoral hernias, ASA, serum albumin, operative room time, a recurrent hernia, and the minimally invasive approaches were independent predictors of overall complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes in the OHR cohort were, in general, superior compared with both the LHR and RHR. However, these strategies should be viewed as complementary. The best approach to an inguinal hernia repair rests on the specific expertise of the surgeon.