Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic transabdominal peritoneal repair for unilateral inguinal hernia: a propensity-score matched analysis

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.

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.

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.

Comparative Analysis of NSQIP National Outcomes and Projected Outcomes versus Our Institutional Outcomes for Robotic Gastrectomy: The Future of Gastric Resection

BACKGROUND

The robotic approach has vast applications in surgery; however, the utility of robotic gastrectomy has yet to be clearly defined. This study aimed to compare outcomes following robotic gastrectomy at our institution to the national patient-specific predicted outcomes data provided by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP).

METHODS

We prospectively studied 73 patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy under our care. ACS NSQIP outcomes after gastrectomy and predicted outcomes for our patients were compared with our actual outcomes utilizing students t test and chi-square analysis, where applicable. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Patients were 65 (66 ± 10.7) years old with a BMI of 26 (28 ± 6.5) kg/m2. 35 patients had gastric adenocarcinomas and 22 had gastrointestinal stromal tumors Operative duration was 245 (250 ± 114.7) minutes, estimated blood loss was 50 (83 ± 91.6) mL, and there were no conversions to 'open'. 1% of patients experienced superficial surgical site infections compared to the NSQIP predicted rate of 10% (P < .05). Length of stay (LOS) was 5 (6 ± 4.2) days vs NSQIP's predicted LOS of 8 (8 ± 3.2) days (P < .05). Three patients died during their postoperative hospital course (4%), due to multi-system organ failure and cardiac arrest. 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year estimated survival for patients with gastric adenocarcinoma was 76%, 63%, and 63%, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Robotic gastrectomy yields salutary patient outcomes and optimal survival for varying gastric diseases, particularly gastric adenocarcinoma. Our patients experienced shorter hospital stays and reduced complications relative to patients in NSQIP and predicted outcome for our patients. Gastrectomy undertaken robotically is the future of gastric resection.