OBJECTIVES: To determine if different approaches to an inguinal hernia repair (robotic, laparoscopic, or open) results in different outcomes during a simultaneous robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively generated database of all RARPs performed at our institution. Patients who had a simultaneous inguinal hernia repair were identified. We compared them to an age-matched and body mass index-matched cohort who underwent RARP alone. We also compared outcomes between robotic versus laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. RESULTS: A total of 1224 RARPs were performed between March 2004 and September 2009. Eighteen patients had simultaneous inguinal hernia repairs during their RARP performed by a general surgeon (5 laparoscopic, 8 open, and 5 robotic). When compared with the cohort who underwent RARP only, there were no statistically significant differences in blood loss, length of stay, or complications. The control group had a significantly shorter OR time (179.5 vs. 215.5 minutes, p = 0.007). When comparing the different approaches of an inguinal hernia repair, the only statistically significant differences noted were body mass index and operative time. Operative time was longer in open versus robotic inguinal hernia repair (74 vs. 31.6 minutes, p = 0.006). There were only two recurrences, both after the simultaneous open inguinal hernia repair. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous inguinal hernia repair is a safe and feasible operation to perform during RARP. Although it does extend overall operative time, approaching the repair robotically is quicker than an open approach. A randomized study is needed to truly determine if one approach has better outcomes than the rest.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if different approaches to an inguinal hernia repair (robotic, laparoscopic, or open) results in different outcomes during a simultaneous robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively generated database of all RARPs performed at our institution. Patients who had a simultaneous inguinal hernia repair were identified. We compared them to an age-matched and body mass index-matched cohort who underwent RARP alone. We also compared outcomes between robotic versus laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. RESULTS: A total of 1224 RARPs were performed between March 2004 and September 2009. Eighteen patients had simultaneous inguinal hernia repairs during their RARP performed by a general surgeon (5 laparoscopic, 8 open, and 5 robotic). When compared with the cohort who underwent RARP only, there were no statistically significant differences in blood loss, length of stay, or complications. The control group had a significantly shorter OR time (179.5 vs. 215.5 minutes, p = 0.007). When comparing the different approaches of an inguinal hernia repair, the only statistically significant differences noted were body mass index and operative time. Operative time was longer in open versus robotic inguinal hernia repair (74 vs. 31.6 minutes, p = 0.006). There were only two recurrences, both after the simultaneous open inguinal hernia repair. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous inguinal hernia repair is a safe and feasible operation to perform during RARP. Although it does extend overall operative time, approaching the repair robotically is quicker than an open approach. A randomized study is needed to truly determine if one approach has better outcomes than the rest.
Authors: Amir Szold; Roberto Bergamaschi; Ivo Broeders; Jenny Dankelman; Antonello Forgione; Thomas Langø; Andreas Melzer; Yoav Mintz; Salvador Morales-Conde; Michael Rhodes; Richard Satava; Chung-Ngai Tang; Ramon Vilallonga Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jose E Escobar Dominguez; Michael Gonzalez Ramos; Rupa Seetharamaiah; Charan Donkor; Jorge Rabaza; Anthony Gonzalez Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 4.584