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

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.

Botulinum Toxin A as an Adjunct for the Repair Giant Inguinal Hernias: Case Reports and a Review of the Literature

The management of giant inguinoscrotal hernias remains a challenge as a result of the loss of the intra-abdominal domain from long-standing hernia contents within the scrotum. Multiple techniques have been described for abdominal wall relaxation and augmentation to allow the safe return of viscera from the scrotum to the intraperitoneal cavity without adversely affecting cardiorespiratory physiology. Preoperative progressive pneumoperitoneum, phrenectomy, and component separation are but a few common techniques previously described as adjuncts to the management of these massively large hernias. However, these strategies require an additional invasive stage, and reproducibility remains challenging. Botulinum toxin A (BTA) has been successfully used for the management of complex ventral hernias. Its use for these hernias has shown reproducibility and a low side effect profile. In the present report, we describe our institutional experience with BTA for giant inguinal hernias in two patients and present a review of the literature. In one case, a 77-year-old man with a substantial cardiac history presented with a giant left inguinal hernia that was interfering with his activities of daily living. He had BTA six weeks prior to inguinal hernia repair. Repair was performed via an inguinal incision with a favorable return of the viscera into the peritoneum. He was discharged on the same day of the operation. A second patient, 78 years of age, had a giant right inguinoscrotal hernia. He had a significant cardiac history and was treated with BTA six weeks prior to inguinal hernia repair via a groin incision. Neither patient had complaints nor recurrence at 7- and 3-month follow-ups. While the literature on this topic is scarce, we found 13 cases of inguinal hernias treated with BTA as an adjunct. BTA might be a promising adjunct for the management of giant inguinoscrotal hernias in addition to or in place of current strategies.

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 Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Unilateral Repair of Non-recurrent Inguinal Hernia

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data comparing open, robotic, and laparoscopic approaches on unilateral, non-recurrent inguinal hernias. Our study presents a large, retrospective triple-arm outcome analysis between robotic, laparoscopic, and open unilateral, non-recurrent inguinal hernia repairs at a single institution.

METHODS

706 patients who underwent elective, non-recurrent inguinal hernia repair performed by 8 general surgeons at a single institution from 2016 to 2019 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient baseline characteristics, operative times, resident involvement, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed for all repair types. A cost analysis of the different procedures was performed.

RESULTS

There were 305 laparoscopic repairs, 207 robotic repairs, and 194 open repairs. Open and laparoscopic repairs were performed on patients who were older (p =< .001) and with a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (p =< .001). Patient BMI was higher in minimally invasive repair than open repair (P = .021). There were no significant differences in complication rates on pairwise analysis. Robotic and open repairs had significantly longer operative times than laparoscopic repairs (P < .001). There was less resident involvement in robotic repair than with the other approaches (P < .001). Resident involvement was associated with shorter OR times (P = .001) and no significant difference in postoperative complications. There was a trend over the study period toward faster operative times and more robotic repair. Robotic repair is the most expensive repair, followed by laparoscopic and open repairs.

CONCLUSION

All 3 repair techniques can be performed without significant differences in outcomes. The technique utilized should be based on surgeon preference and patient characteristics.

The Minimally Invasive Inguinal Hernia: Current Trends and Considerations

Inguinal hernias are one of the most common surgical pathologies faced by the general surgeon in modern medicine. The cumulative incidence of an inguinal hernia is around 25% in men and 3% in women. The majority of inguinal hernias can be repaired minimally invasively, utilizing either robotic or laparoscopic approaches.

Outcomes of Open Versus Laparoscopic Technique in Primary Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Study

Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most common surgical procedures worldwide. In clinical practice, there are two different routes to repair inguinal hernias: laparoscopic mesh repair and open. Reducing the hernia and preventing recurrence remains the mainstay treatment option of both procedures. This study aims to compare postoperative outcomes and recurrence rates for patients who had primary, non-recurrent, laparoscopic, or open hernia repair in a single tertiary hospital. A retrospective cohort study was done on 468 patients. The study was conducted at King Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAUH) between 2013 and 2022. The distribution of our study population was divided into open hernia repair 378 participants (80.8%) while the rest did laparoscopic hernia repair 90 (19.2%). Operation duration in minutes was 107.158 ± 41.402 in the open hernia repair group and was noted to be significantly higher in the laparoscopic hernia repair group, with 142.811 ± 52.102 minutes p-value (0.000). The hospital length of stay was shown to be shorter in laparoscopic hernia repair (1.58 ±1.27) compared to open hernia repair (2.05±5.33). The most common postoperative complication was scrotal swelling, commonly associated with laparoscopic (5.55%) compared to 2.11% in open hernia repair. Open repair showed a risk of scrotal hematoma with a percentage of 0.52% compared to 0% in the laparoscopic method with a p-value (0.033). Hernia recurrence was non-related with any specific group, although noted to be higher in the laparoscopic group (7.77%), while in the open group (3.4%) with a p-value (0.081). The study conducted showed no alarming percentages for recurrence in either technique, open or laparoscopic, yet the open approach had a better outcome when it comes to scrotal pain and swelling post-operatively, chronic groin pain, and readmission rate as compared to laparoscopic technique, despite having a longer hospital stay. Future larger studies should be conducted to provide equal population inclusivity.

Global Incidence and Risk Factors Associated With Postoperative Urinary Retention Following Elective Inguinal Hernia Repair: The Retention of Urine After Inguinal Hernia Elective Repair (RETAINER I) Study

Importance

Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) is a well-recognized complication of inguinal hernia repair (IHR). A variable incidence of POUR has previously been reported in this context, and contradictory evidence surrounds potential risk factors.

Objective

To ascertain the incidence of, explore risk factors for, and determine the health service outcomes of POUR following elective IHR.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Retention of Urine After Inguinal Hernia Elective Repair (RETAINER I) study, an international, prospective cohort study, recruited participants between March 1 and October 31, 2021. This study was conducted across 209 centers in 32 countries in a consecutive sample of adult patients undergoing elective IHR.

Exposure

Open or minimally invasive IHR by any surgical technique, under local, neuraxial regional, or general anesthesia.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the incidence of POUR following elective IHR. Secondary outcomes were perioperative risk factors, management, clinical consequences, and health service outcomes of POUR. A preoperative International Prostate Symptom Score was measured in male patients.

Results

In total, 4151 patients (3882 male and 269 female; median [IQR] age, 56 [43-68] years) were studied. Inguinal hernia repair was commenced via an open surgical approach in 82.2% of patients (n = 3414) and minimally invasive surgery in 17.8% (n = 737). The primary form of anesthesia was general in 40.9% of patients (n = 1696), neuraxial regional in 45.8% (n = 1902), and local in 10.7% (n = 446). Postoperative urinary retention occurred in 5.8% of male patients (n = 224), 2.97% of female patients (n = 8), and 9.5% (119 of 1252) of male patients aged 65 years or older. Risk factors for POUR after adjusted analyses included increasing age, anticholinergic medication, history of urinary retention, constipation, out-of-hours surgery, involvement of urinary bladder within the hernia, temporary intraoperative urethral catheterization, and increasing operative duration. Postoperative urinary retention was the primary reason for 27.8% of unplanned day-case surgery admissions (n = 74) and 51.8% of 30-day readmissions (n = 72).

Conclusions

The findings of this cohort study suggest that 1 in 17 male patients, 1 in 11 male patients aged 65 years or older, and 1 in 34 female patients may develop POUR following IHR. These findings could inform preoperative patient counseling. In addition, awareness of modifiable risk factors may help to identify patients at increased risk of POUR who may benefit from perioperative risk mitigation strategies.

Robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) approaches to bilateral hernia repair: a multicenter retrospective study using propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Since the introduction of minimally invasive surgery, new techniques like transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair have progressively gained acceptance for the treatment of groin hernia. Laparoscopic TAPP (LTAPP) is recommended for bilateral repairs. Likewise, the introduction of robotic platforms has promised additional surgical benefits for robotic TAPP (RTAPP), which are yet to be confirmed. This study compared multicenter data obtained from patients undergoing bilateral inguinal hernia repair with RTAPP, performed during the preliminary learning curve period, versus conventional LTAPP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All consecutive bilateral inguinal hernia patients from four Italian centers between June 2015 and July 2020 were selected. A propensity score model was used to compare patients treated with LTAPP versus RTAPP, considering sex, age, body mass index, current smoking status, overall comorbidity, hernia classification (primary or recurrent), and associated procedures as covariates. After matching, intraoperative details and postoperative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 275 LTAPP and 40 RTAPP were performed. After matching, 80 and 40 patients were allocated to the LTAPP and RTAPP cohorts, respectively. No intraoperative complications or conversion to open surgery occurred. However, a longer operative time was recorded in the RTAPP group (79 ± 21 versus 98 ± 29 min; p < 0.001). Postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores (p = 0.13) did not differ and complication rates were similar. There were no clinical recurrences in either group, with mean follow-up periods of 52 ± 14 (LTAPP) and 35 ± 8 (RTAPP) months. A statistical difference in length of hospital stay was found between the groups (1.05 ± 0.22 vs 1.50 ± 0.74 days; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this patient population, outcomes for bilateral inguinal hernia repair appear comparable for RTAPP and LTAPP, except for a shorter recovery after laparoscopic surgery. A longer operative time for robotic surgery could be attributable to the learning curve period of each center.

Implementation of robotic hernia surgery using the Versius® system

This case series aims to demonstrate that hernia surgery is safe and feasible using the Versius® robotic system from CMR Surgical, and to describe the surgical techniques used. It is the first series published using this novel system. Forty-one consecutive hernia repair cases were completed using Versius®, including inguinal and ventral hernias. Data were collected prospectively on a number of pre-, peri-, and postoperative outcomes. Techniques are described for robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia, and intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair of ventral hernia. Thirty-two inguinal and nine ventral hernia repairs were performed over a 12-month period. The population were 88% male with a mean body mass index of 27.4 ± 3.5. There were no conversions to open surgery. Median length of stay was 0 days. Six patients (15%) experienced urinary retention, and there were 2 further minor complications with no major complications, readmissions or reoperations. Use of the Versius® system for robotic hernia surgery is safe, with comparable results to existing robotic systems. Implementation is possible with minimal changes to established surgical techniques.

Robot-Assisted General Surgery Procedures at the Veterans Health Administration: A Comparison of Surgical Techniques

INTRODUCTION

The use of the robot in general surgery has exploded in the last decade. The Veterans Health Administration presents a unique opportunity to study differences between surgical approaches due to the ability to control for health system and insurance variability. This study compares clinical outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic or open techniques for three general surgery procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study using the Veterans Affair Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Operative time, length of stay, and complications were compared for cholecystectomy (robot-assisted versus laparoscopic), ventral, and inguinal hernia repair (robot-assisted versus laparoscopic or open) from 2015 to 2019.

RESULTS

More than 80,000 cases were analyzed (21,652 cholecystectomy, 9214 ventral hernia repairs, and 51,324 inguinal hernia repairs). Median operative time was longer for all robot-assisted approaches as compared to laparoscopic or open techniques with the largest difference seen between open and robot-assisted primary ventral hernia repair (unadjusted difference of 93 min, P < 0.001). Median length of stay was between 1 and 4 d and significantly for robot-assisted ventral hernia repairs (versus open, P < 0.01; versus lap for recurrent hernia, P < 0.05). Specific postoperative outcomes of interest were overall low with few differences between techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

While the robotic platform was associated with longer operative time, these findings must be interpreted in the context of a learning curve and indications for use (i.e., use of the robot for technically challenging cases). Our findings suggest that at the Veterans Health Administration, the robot is as safe a platform for common general surgery procedures as traditional approaches. Future studies should focus on patient-centered outcomes including pain and cosmesis.

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.

Contemporary Matched-Cohort Comparison of Surgical Approach to Inguinal Hernia Repair: Are Minimally Invasive Approaches Associated with Higher Rates of Recurrence?

BACKGROUND

Current studies evaluating outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic inguinal hernia repair, in general, include small numbers of robotic cases and are not powered to allow a direct comparison of the 3 approaches to repair.

STUDY DESIGN

We queried the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database to identify patients undergoing initial elective inguinal hernia repair between 2013 and 2017. Propensity score matching and multivariable logistic regression were used to make risk-adjusted assessments of association between surgical approach and outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 39,358 patients underwent initial elective inguinal hernia repair; 32,881 (84%) underwent an open approach, 6,135 (16%) underwent a laparoscopic approach, and 342 (1%) underwent a robotic-assisted approach. Two hundred sixty-six (1%) patients had a recurrent repair performed during follow-up. On univariate comparison, patients undergoing a robotic-assisted approach had longer operative times for unilateral repair than those undergoing either an open or laparoscopic (73 ± 31 vs 74 ± 29 vs 107 ± 41 minutes; p < 0.001) approach. On multivariable logistic regression, patients with a higher BMI had an increased adjusted risk of a postoperative complication, but there was no association between surgical approach and complication rate. Three hundred forty-two patients undergoing robotic repair were 1:3:3 propensity score matched to 1,026 patients undergoing laparoscopic and 1,026 undergoing open repair. On comparison of matched cohorts, there were no statistical differences between approaches regarding recurrence (0.6% vs 0.8% vs 0.6%, p > 0.05) or complication rate (0.6% vs 1.2% vs 1.2%, p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing initial elective inguinal hernia repair, rates of hernia recurrence are low independent of surgical approach. Both robotic and laparoscopic approaches demonstrate rates of early postoperative morbidity and recurrence similar to those for the open approach. The robotic approach is associated with longer operative time than either laparoscopic or open repair.

Evaluation of Regional Geospatial Clusters in Inguinal Hernia Repair

Introduction

There is significant variation in how inguinal hernia repairs are conducted across the United States (US). This study seeks to utilize national public data on inguinal hernia repair to determine regional differences in the use of ambulatory surgical centers (ASC) and in the choice of laparoscopic or open technique.

Methods

Medicare provider billing and enrollee demographic data were merged with US census and economic data to create a county-level database for the years 2014-2019. Location, technique, and total count of all inguinal hernia repair billing were recorded for 1286 counties. Moran’s I cluster analysis for inguinal hernia repairs, percent laparoscopic technique, and percent ACS were conducted. Subsequent hotspot and coldspot clusters identified in geospatial analysis were compared using ANOVA across 50 socioeconomic variables with a significance threshold of 0.001. 

Results 

There were 292,870 inguinal hernia repairs, of which 39.8% were conducted laparoscopically and 21.3% of which were in an ACS. Inguinal hernia repair coldspots were in the Mid-Atlantic and Northern Midwest, while hotspots were in Nebraska, Kansas, and Maryland (3.85 and 36.53 repairs per 1000 beneficiaries, respectively). Compared to coldspots, hotspot areas of repair were less obese, had less tobacco use, older, and less insured; there were no differences in gender, white population, or county urbanization (p<0.001). Laparoscopic technique coldspots were in the Mid-Atlantic, Michigan, and Great Plains, while hotspots were in the Rocky Mountains and contiguous states from Florida to Wisconsin (6.14% and 75.39%, respectively). ACS coldspots were diffusely scattered between Oklahoma and New Hampshire, while hotspots were in California, Colorado, Maryland, Tennessee, and Indiana (0.51% and 48.71%, respectively).

Conclusions

Inguinal hernia repair, the surgical setting, and the choice of technique demonstrated interesting geospatial trends in our population of interest that have not been previously characterized.

A comparative evaluation of robotic and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a critical evaluation on the impact of postoperative pain and opioid requirements

INTRODUCTION

The benefits of minimally invasive surgery using laparoscopy on postoperative pain and opioid use are well established. Our goal was to determine whether patients who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass using a robotic approach (RA-RYGB) had lower postoperative pain and required less opioids than those undergoing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (L-RYGB). Secondary outcomes evaluated included length of stay, operative time, and readmissions.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

This was a retrospective cohort study from a tertiary academic medical center. Patients who underwent L-RYGB or RA-RYGB between 5/1/2018 and 10/31/2019 were included. Cases with concomitant hernia repair, chronic opioid use, and those who did not receive a TAP block or multimodal pain control were excluded. Baseline demographics were compared. Inpatient and outpatient opioid use in Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME) and pain scores (10-point Likert scale) were compared.

RESULTS

There were 573 RY patients included (462 L-RYGB; 111 RA-RYGB). Median and maximum inpatient pain scores were similar for L-RYGB and RA-RYGB (3.0 vs 3.1, p = 0.878; 7.0 vs 7.0, p = 0.688). Median inpatient opioid use and maximum single day use were similar for L-RYGB and RA-RYGB (40.0 MME vs. 42.0 MME, p = 0.671; 30.0 MME vs 30.0 MME, p = 0.648). Both the outpatient prescribing of opioids (50.2% vs. 42.3%, p = 0.136) and outpatient opioid MME at 2 weeks (L-RYGB 30.0 MME vs. 33.8 MME, p = 0.854) were comparable between cohorts. Patient reported pain at 2-week follow-up was significantly higher for RA-RYGB (68.1%) than L-RYGB (55.6%) (p = 0.030). RA-RYGB had a higher rate of 30-day readmission and longer operative times compared to the L-RYGB (6.3% vs 13.5%, p = 0.010; 144.5 vs 200.0 min, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study identified no benefit for postoperative pain or opioid requirements in patients undergoing RA-RYGB compared to L-RYGB. The RA-RYGB group was significantly more likely to report pain at the two-week follow-up.

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.

The topical application of tranexamic acid to control bleeding in inguinal hernia surgery candidate patients: A randomized controlled trial

Background and objectives

Inguinal hernia surgery is a common procedure, especially for the elderly, who usually use anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of tranexamic acid (TXA) on the complications of inguinal hernia repair in patients using antiplatelets.

Patients and methods

This study is a randomized controlled trial that was performed during the 2018-2019 years. Forty patients with inguinal hernia and antiplatelet use were enrolled randomly into the two groups. In the intervention group, the patients received two injectable form (500mg/5 mL) of TXA, totally 10 mL as a topical application at the surgical site, and then the patient's surgical site was seen every 8 h for 48 h, and the patient was examined daily for one week.

Results

The mean length of hospitalization, seroma, hematoma and infection in the two groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). However, the duration of surgery in the TXA group was significantly shorter than in the control group (54.85 vs. 68.72 min) (P < 0.001). The mean bleeding during surgery was significantly lower in the TXA group than in the control group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The findings of present study indicate that topical TXA has a high ability to control bleeding. As a result, TXA is beneficial in terms of reducing bleeding and increasing the surgeon's satisfaction. Therefore, it is recommended that TXA be prescribed for patients requiring inguinal hernia surgery with a high risk of bleeding.

Fascinating history of groin hernias: Comprehensive recognition of anatomy, classic considerations for herniorrhaphy, and current controversies in hernioplasty

Groin hernias include indirect inguinal, direct inguinal, femoral, obturator, and supravesical hernias. Here, we summarize historical turning points, anatomical recognition and surgical repairs. Groin hernias have a fascinating history in the fields of anatomy and surgery. The concept of tension-free repair is generally accepted among clinicians. Surgical repair with mesh is categorized as hernioplasty, while classic repair without mesh is considered herniorrhaphy. Although various surgical approaches have been developed, the surgical technique should be carefully chosen for each patient. Regarding as interesting history, crucial anatomy and important surgeries in the field of groin hernia, we here summarized them in detail, respectively. Points of debate are also reviewed; important points are shown using illustrations and schemas. We hope this systematic review is surgical guide for general surgeons including residents. Both a skillful technique and anatomical knowledge are indispensable for successful hernia surgery in the groin.

Intra-Operative Vascular Injury and Control During Laparoscopic and Robotic Mesh Explantation for Chronic Post Herniorrhaphy Inguinal Pain (CPIP)

INTRODUCTION

Chronic postherniorrhaphy inguinal pain (CPIP) is common following inguinal hernia repair. As even primary minimally-invasive inguinal hernia repairs carry a risk of significant intra-operative bleeding, it is unsurprising that reoperative groin exploration and mesh explantation for chronic post-inguinal herniorrhaphy pain confers an even higher risk of arteriotomy or venotomy due to a distorted anatomy and the presence of adhesions. In this report, we present a single institution's experience with the management of intra-operative vascular injury encountered during minimally invasive groin exploration and mesh explantation for CPIP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective consecutive case series study at a single academic center of patients with CPIP who underwent minimally invasive groin exploration and mesh removal during which an iatrogenic arteriotomy or venotomy occurred from September 2015 to September 2020. Descriptive statistics were collected for age, laterality of hernia repair, mean follow-up time, surgical approach (robotic vs. laparoscopic), type of intra-operative vascular injury, vascular control technique, and post-operative complications.

RESULTS

Of 196 minimally invasive groin exploration and mesh removal cases, 46 were performed with robotic assistance and 150 were performed using traditional laparoscopy. The overall incidence of intra-operative vascular injury was 43 (22%). Fifteen of 46 (32%) robotic groin exploration and mesh removal cases and 28 of 150 (19%) laparoscopic cases involved vascular control. Three of 15 (20%) robotic cases and 23 of 28 (82%) laparoscopic cases involved a hybrid open inguinal approach to address anterior pathology (neurectomy, anterior mesh removal, hernia repair) or facilitate exposure for vascular repair. The most common site of injury was the inferior epigastric vessels. Other sites included the iliac vein, iliac artery, corona mortis, and accessory obturator vessels. Vascular control techniques included ligation with an energy device or suture, primary suture repair of injured vessel, or bovine pericardium patch angioplasty. All were managed without intra-operative vascular surgery intervention except for one case with extensive calcification that required endarterectomy and angioplasty to improve patency. No cases required conversion to midline laparotomy. Ninety three percent of the cases with large vessel bleeding during laparoscopic-assisted procedures were repaired via an open groin incision, whereas all cases of large vessel bleeding during robotic-assisted procedures were repaired robotically. None of the patients required transfusion. Postoperative complications occurred in 3 patients (7%), 2 (5%) developed hematoma formation requiring surgical evacuation, and 1 (2%) developed ipsilateral iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and underwent peripheral angiography and thrombolysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although minimally invasive groin exploration and mesh explantation for CPIP is technically challenging, it is a safe and effective operation when performed at experienced centers. Iatrogenic vascular injury should be anticipated but can be effectively controlled laparoscopically, robotically, or via a hybrid open inguinal incision without conversion to a midline laparotomy and with low post-operative complication rates.

Laparoscopic vs. Open Repair Surgery for the Treatment of Communicating Hydrocele in Children: A Retrospective Study From a Single Center

Purpose: This study evaluated the outcomes of laparoscopic repair (LR) and open repair (OR) surgery for communicating hydrocele in children.

Patients and Methods: We collected the clinical data and follow-up data of all boys (<14 years) who underwent communicating hydrocele surgery in the pediatric surgery department at Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College from January 2017 to December 2018 and retrospectively analyzed the data.

Results: In this study, 155 patients were retrospectively enrolled, including 90 patients in the OR group and 65 patients in the LR group. There were significant differences in operation time and the recurrence of hydrocele between the two groups. The persistence of scrotal swelling in the LR group was significantly lower than that in the OR group. There was no significant difference in postoperative hospitalization time or incision infection rate between the two groups.

Conclusion: In conclusion, this study shows that laparoscopic treatment of children with communicating hydrocele has the advantages of a hidden incision, a shortened operation time, and a reduced postoperative recurrence rate and can be used as the preferred surgical method. However, laparoscopic treatment should be selected according to the specific condition of each child and cannot completely replace traditional open surgery.

Comparison between robotic and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in Caucasian patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Laparoscopic and robotic techniques allow surgeons to dissect and observe the groin area from the inside out, this study was to evaluate and compare the effects and safety of robotic inguinal hernia repair (R-IHR) and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (L-IHR) in Caucasian patients.

Methods

We searched the full texts of studies comparing R-IHR and L-IHR in multiple databases. Meta-, sensitivity, and bias analyses of the included literature were performed with Review Manager 5.2, and forest plots were drawn. The joint estimate of the risk ratio (RR) and the mean difference (MD) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as a measure of the effect size.

Results

This meta-analysis included 8 eligible studies involving 1,379 Caucasian patients with inguinal hernia (IH). No significant difference was found in pain score (MD =1.52, 95% CI, −0.30, 3.35, P=0.10; I²=97%), length of hospital stay (MD =0.14, 95% CI, −0.03, 0.30, P for overall effect =1.63, I²=0%), or complications (RR =1.24 with 95% CI, 0.94, 1.63, P for overall effect =0.13, I²=0%) between R-IHR and L-IHR. However, there was significant difference in operative time between R-IHR and L-IHR (MD =17.17, 95% CI, 6.32, 28.03, P=0.002; I²=84%).

Discussion

This meta-analysis revealed only minor differences between R-IHR and L-IHR in terms of clinical effects and safety in Caucasian patients, although R-IHR has a longer operative time than L-IHR. Both R-IHR and L-IHR are suitable to treat Caucasian patients with IH.

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.

Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair Outcomes: Operative Time and Cost Analysis

Background

Robotic inguinal hernia repair is the latest iteration of minimally invasive herniorrhaphy. Previous studies have shown expedited learning curves compared to traditional laparoscopy, which may be offset by higher cost and longer operative time. We sought to compare operative time and direct cost across the evolving surgical practice of 10 surgeons in our healthcare system.

Methods

This is a retrospective review of all transabdominal preperitoneal robotic inguinal hernia repairs performed by 10 general surgeons from July 2015 to September 2018. Patients requiring conversion to an open procedure or undergoing simultaneous procedures were excluded. The data was divided to compare each surgeon's initial 20 cases to their subsequent cases. Direct operative cost was calculated based on the sum of supplies used intra-operatively. Multivariate analysis, using a generalized estimating equation, was adjusted for laterality and resident involvement to evaluate outcomes.

Results

Robotic inguinal hernia repairs were divided into two groups: early experience (n = 167) and late experience (n = 262). The late experience had a shorter mean operative time by 17.6 min (confidence interval: 4.06 - 31.13, p = 0.011), a lower mean direct operative cost by $538.17 (confidence interval: 307.14 - 769.20, p < 0.0001), and fewer postoperative complications (p = 0.030) on multivariate analysis. Thirty-day readmission rates were similar between both groups.

Conclusion

Increasing surgeon experience with robotic inguinal hernia repair is associated with a predictable reduction in operative time, complication rates, and direct operative cost per case. Thirty-day readmission rates are not affected by the learning curve.

Outcomes of obese compared to non-obese veterans undergoing open inguinal hernia repair: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach for inguinal hernia repair in the obese remains elusive. Minimally invasive techniques show equivocal results compared to the open method. None of the current analyses include a non-obese control group because the differences in factors leading to complications vary widely between these two cohorts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the present study, we matched (1:1) obese to non-obese patients undergoing an open inguinal hernia repair. Matching was performed by age, hernia type (bilateral, inguinal, femoral, recurrent, primary, direct, pantaloon, and scrotal component), type of repair (tissue repair vs. mesh), concurrent umbilical hernia repair, current smoking, ASA Class, a history of DM and COPD.

RESULTS

Demographics in the unmatched cohorts demonstrated significantly (p < 0.05) wide differences between obese (n = 319) and non-obese (n = 1137) veterans: age (58.0- vs. 63.4-year-old), indirect hernia (37.7% vs. 45.5%), scrotal component (14.4% vs. 9.9%), current smoking (23.5% vs. 34.4%), DM (20.8% vs. 13.1%), OSA (13.2% vs. 3.6%), COPD (12.2% vs. 18.5%), and BPH (16.9% vs. 23.3). After matching, there were 300 obese and 300 non-obese patients available for analysis. There was no difference in 30-day morbidity between obese and non-obese patients in the unmatched (11.0% vs. 7.9%; p = 0.09) and matched (10.7% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.27) cohorts. Similarly, no differences in inguinodynia and recurrence were observed in either matched or unmatched cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Obese patients pose no further risk in outcomes compared to non-obese veterans undergoing open inguinal hernia repair. The best technique for an inguinal hernia repair in obese patients should rest on the comfort and the experience of the surgeon.

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.

Outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease in Veteran patients

The robotic platform for cholecystectomy has been extensively studied in comparison to its laparoscopic counterpart with acceptable outcomes. However, wide acceptance of a robotic approach to cholecystectomy has been limited by increased operative room (OR) times and substantially higher cost. This is a single-institution retrospective review of Veteran patients presenting for elective laparoscopic (LC) and robotic (RC) cholecystectomies for benign biliary disease at the Dallas VA Medical Center. The primary goal was to interrogate 30-day morbidity as well as operative room times, estimated blood loss (EBL), hospital length of stay (LOS), and conversion rates. The entire cohort included 612 patients (age = 55.1 ± 12.9 years, men = 77.9%, BMI = 31.2 ± 6.3 kg/m²) undergoing elective cholecystectomy (LC = 441 and RC = 171) for benign biliary disease (biliary colic = 78.8%, history of biliary pancreatitis = 7.8%, history of cholecystitis = 5.7%). Univariate analysis comparing LC and RC showed the two groups to be of similar age (55.4 ± 12.4 vs. 54.4 ± 14.2 years; p = 0.4), male gender (79.4% vs. 74.3%, p = 0.2), and BMI (31.1 ± 6.4 vs. 31.5 ± 6.3 kg/m²; p = 0.5). Except for dyslipidemia (LC = 48.3% vs. RC = 36.8%; p = 0.01), both groups had the same rate of co-morbid conditions. ASA level III and IV (LC = 60.1 vs. RC = 69.0%, p = 0.04) was higher in the RC group. Both groups underwent surgical intervention for similar indications (biliary colic LC = 80.5% vs. RC = 74.3; p = 0.1). Hospital LOS (1.7 ± 3.2 vs. 0.3 ± 0.9 days, p < 0.001), EBL (32.3 ± 52.3 vs. 17.0 ± 43.1; p = 0.001), and conversion to open (6.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.001) were all superior with the robotic platform. Thirty-day overall morbidity (9.8% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.4), skin-to-skin OR time (84.5 ± 33.5 vs. 88.0 ± 35.3 min, p = 0.2), and total OR time (129.2 ± 36.8 vs. 129.7 ± 39.7, p = 0.9) were similar between the LC and RC groups. Despite being older and having more comorbidities, Veteran patients undergoing robotic cholecystectomy experienced equivalent OR time and a moderate improvement in conversion rate, EBL, and hospital LOS compared to those undergoing conventional laparoscopy, therein demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the robotic platform for this patient population.

Comparative perioperative and 5-year outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic or open inguinal hernia repair: a study of 153,727 patients in the state of New York

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the perioperative outcomes of robotic inguinal hernia repair as compared to the open and laparoscopic approaches utilizing large-scale population-level data.

METHODS

This study was funded by the SAGES Robotic Surgery Research Grant (2019). The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) administrative database was used to identify all adult patients undergoing initial open (O-IHR), laparoscopic (L-IHR), and robotic (R-IHR) inguinal hernia repair between 2010 and 2016. Perioperative outcome measures [complications, length of stay (LOS), 30-day emergency department (ED) visits, 30-day readmissions] and estimated 1/3/5-year recurrence incidences were compared. Propensity score (PS) analysis was used to estimate marginal differences between R-IHR and L-IHR or O-IHR, using a 1:1 matching algorithm.

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 153,727 patients underwent inguinal hernia repair (117,603 [76.5%] O-IHR, 35,565 [23.1%] L-IHR; 559 [0.36%] R-IHR) in New York state. Initial univariate analysis found R-IHR to have longer LOS (1.74 days vs. 0.66 O-IHR vs 0.19 L-IHR) and higher rates of overall complications (9.3% vs. 3.6% O-IHR vs 1.1% L-IHR), 30-day ED visits (11.6% vs. 6.1% O-IHR vs. 4.9% L-IHR), and 30-day readmissions (5.6% vs. 2.4% O-IHR vs. 1.2% L-IHR) (p < 0.0001). R-IHR was associated with higher recurrence compared to L-IHR. Following PS analysis, there were no differences in perioperative outcomes between R-IHR and L-IHR, and the difference in recurrence was found to be sensitive to possible unobserved confounding factors. R-IHR had significantly lower risk of complications (Risk difference - 0.09, 95% CI [- 0.13, - 0.056]; p < 0.0001) and shorter LOS (Ratio 0.53, 95% CI [0.45, 0.62]; p < 0.0001) compared to O-IHR.

CONCLUSION

In adult patients, R-IHR may be associated with comparable to more favorable 30-day perioperative outcomes as compared with L-IHR and O-IHR, respectively.

Bilateral Inguinal Hernia Repair: Robotic TAPP Versus Laparoscopic TEP

BACKGROUND

As the advantages of minimally invasive techniques in general surgery have been shown, we prefer laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (LTEP) inguinal hernia repair or robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (RTAPP) inguinal hernia repair in patients diagnosed especially with a bilateral inguinal hernia in our practice. The present study aims to evaluate the early/midterm outcomes and complications in patients who underwent LTEP and RTAPP because of bilateral inguinal hernia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 189 patients underwent inguinal hernia repair between June 2016 and June 2019 in our department. Data of 49 (2F) patients (33 LTEP/16 RTAPP) who had undergone bilateral inguinal hernia repair were evaluated retrospectively. Univariate analysis was performed to identify the relations between the techniques (LTEP vs. RTAPP), outcomes, and complications.

RESULTS

Patient demographics and comorbidities were similar in both groups. There was no difference between the groups in terms of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (P=0.09). Operative time was longer in the RTAPP group (P=0.001). Length of hospital stay was similar in both groups (P=0.11). No recurrence was observed in both groups. Mean pain scores were significantly less for the RTAPP group (P=0.05). When general complications were compared, it was found that the RTAPP group had a statistically significant lower complication rate (P=0.02). Mean follow-up was longer in the LTEP group (P=0.04). Total hospital costs for RTAPP and LTEP were 3968$ and 2506$, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that RTAPP seems to have better results in terms of general complications and postoperative pain score when compared with LTAPP. Robotic surgery might be safely recommended for bilateral inguinal hernia repair.

Crucial anatomy and technical cues for laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair: Advanced manipulation for groin hernias in adults

Groin hernias include indirect inguinal, direct inguinal, and femoral hernias. Obturator and supravesical hernias appear very close to the groin. High-quality repairs are required for groin hernias. The concept of "tension-free repair" is generally accepted, and surgical repairs with mesh are categorized as "hernioplasties". Surgeons should have good knowledge of the relevant anatomy. Physicians generally focus on the preperitoneal space, myopectineal orifice, topographic nerves, and regional vessels. Currently, laparoscopic surgery has therapeutic potential in the surgical setting for hernioplasty, with laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair appearing to be a powerful tool for use in adult hernia patients. TAPP offers the advantages of accurate diagnoses, repair of bilateral and recurrent hernias, less postoperative pain, early recovery allowing work and activities, tension-free repair of the preperitoneal (posterior) space, ability to cover obturator hernias, and avoidance of potential injury to the spermatic cord. The disadvantages of TAPP are the need for general anesthesia, adhering to a learning curve, higher cost, unexpected complications related to abdominal organs, adhesion to the mesh, unexpected injuries to vessels, prolonged operative time, and as-yet-unknown long-term outcomes. Both technical skill and anatomical familiarity are important for safe, reliable surgery. With increasing awareness of the importance of anatomy during TAPP repair, we address the skills and pitfalls during laparoscopic TAPP repair in adult patients using illustrations and schemas. We also address debatable points on this subject.

A comparative analysis of outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic elective (procto-) colectomies for benign and malignant disease

Laparoscopy has emerged as a common alternative to the open approach for colorectal operations. Robotic surgery has many advantages, but cost and outcomes are an area of study. There are no randomized-controlled trials of all techniques. The present study evaluated a cohort of veterans undergoing (procto-) colectomy for benign or malignant colorectal disease. This is a single-institution retrospective review. We compared open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomies. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary endpoints included morbidity, operative times, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), conversion rate, and the learning curve (LC). Subgroup analyses were undertaken for: (1) right hemicolectomies (RHC) and (2) by specific surgeons most familiar with each approach. The cohort included 390 patients (men = 95%, White = 70.8%, BMI = 29.3 ± 6.4 kg/m², age = 63.7 ± 10.2 years) undergoing (open = 117, laparoscopic = 168, and robotic = 105), colorectal operations for colorectal adenocarcinoma (52.8%) and benign disease. Thirty-day morbidity was similar across all techniques (open = 46.2%, laparoscopic = 42.9%, and robotic = 38.1%; NS). EBL and LOS were decreased with minimally invasive techniques compared to open. Operative time was longer in robotic, but equalized to laparoscopic after 90 cases. The learning curve was reduced to 20 when performed by the surgeon most familiar with the robot. EBL and operative time independently predicted complications for the entire cohort. The best technique for colorectal operations rests on the surgeon's experience, but minimally invasive techniques are gaining momentum over open colectomies. Robotic colectomy is emerging as a non-inferior approach to laparoscopy in terms of outcomes, while maintaining all its technical advantages.

The paradox of the robotic approach to inguinal hernia repair in the inpatient setting

BACKGROUND

Robotics offers improved ergonomics, enhanced visualization, and increased dexterity. Disadvantages include startup, maintenance and instrument costs. Surgeon education notwithstanding, we hypothesized that robotic inguinal hernia repair carries minimal advantages over the open or laparoscopic approach in the inpatient setting.

METHODS

The HCUP-SID and AHA datasets were queried for inguinal hernia repair codes. Hospital and patient demographic, financial and comorbidity data were evaluated. Data are presented as mean ± SEM.

RESULTS

36396 cases (27776 Open, 7104 Laparoscopic and 1516 Robotic) were identified. Total costs were: $13595 ± 104 (Open), $13581 ± 176 (Laparoscopic) and $18494 ± 323 (Robotic). (p < 0.0001 Robotic vs Open, Robotic vs Laparoscopic) Robotic costs were 38% greater than that of the Open and Laparoscopic subsets (p < 0.001 Robotic vs. Open and Laparoscopic). The Open, Laparoscopic and Robotic subsets' length of stay were 4.2, 3.2 and 2.3 days, respectively. (p < 0.0001 among Open, Laparoscopic and Robotic).

CONCLUSION

The Robotic approach to the inguinal hernia repair had the lowest length of stay, despite having the highest costs. The benefits of robotic surgery in inguinal hernia repair are unclear in the inpatient setting.