Literature DB >> 29067575

Inguinal hernia repair: is there a benefit to using the robot?

Eric J Charles1, J Hunter Mehaffey2, Carlos A Tache-Leon2, Peter T Hallowell2, Robert G Sawyer2, Zequan Yang2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The number of robotic surgical procedures performed yearly is constantly rising, due to improved dexterity and visualization capabilities compared with conventional methods. We hypothesized that outcomes after robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair would not be significantly different from outcomes after laparoscopic or open repair.
METHODS: All patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair between 2012 and 2016 were identified using institutional American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Demographics; preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative characteristics; and outcomes were evaluated based on method of repair (Robot, Lap, or Open). Categorical variables were analyzed by Chi-square test and continuous variables using Mann-Whitney U.
RESULTS: A total of 510 patients were identified who underwent unilateral inguinal hernia repair (Robot: 13.8% [n = 69], Lap: 48.1% [n = 241], Open: 38.1% [n = 191]). There were no demographic differences between groups other than age (Robot: 52 [39-62], Lap: 57 [45-67], and Open: 56 [48-67] years, p = 0.03). Operative duration was also different (Robot: 105 [76-146] vs. Lap: 81 [61-103] vs. Open: 71 [56-88] min, p < 0.001). There were no operative mortalities and all patients except one were discharged home the same day. Postoperative occurrences (adverse events, readmissions, and death) were similar between groups (Robot: 2.9% [2], Lap: 3.3% [8], Open: 5.2% [10], p = 0.53). Although rare, there was a significant difference in rate of postoperative skin and soft tissue infection (Robot: 2.9% [2] vs. Lap: 0% [0] vs. Open: 0.5% [1], p = 0.02). Cost was significantly different between groups (Robot: $7162 [$5942-8375] vs. Lap: $4527 [$2310-6003] vs. Open: $4264 [$3277-5143], p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes after robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair were similar to outcomes after laparoscopic or open repair. Longer operative duration during robotic repair may contribute to higher rates of skin and soft tissue infection. Higher cost should be considered, along with surgeon comfort level and patient preference when deciding whether inguinal hernia repair is approached robotically.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Inguinal hernia repair; Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair; Open inguinal hernia repair; Robotics

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29067575     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5911-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  17 in total

Review 1.  Robotic inguinal hernia repair.

Authors:  Jose E Escobar Dominguez; Anthony Gonzalez; Charan Donkor
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 3.454

Review 2.  Robotic surgery in gynecology.

Authors:  Ibrahim Alkatout; Liselotte Mettler; Nicolai Maass; Johannes Ackermann
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2016-12-01

Review 3.  A review on robotic surgery in rectal cancer.

Authors:  Zairul Azwan Mohd Azman; Seon-Hahn Kim
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-03-16

Review 4.  Robotic surgery for gastric tumor: current status and new approaches.

Authors:  Seung Hyun Lim; Hae Min Lee; Taeil Son; Woo Jin Hyung; Hyoung-Il Kim
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-04-07

5.  Robotic Hernia Repair.

Authors:  Nathaniel Stoikes; David Webb; Guy Voeller
Journal:  Surg Technol Int       Date:  2016-10-26

6.  Outcomes after concurrent inguinal hernia repair and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Christopher C Kyle; Matthew K H Hong; Benjamin J Challacombe; Anthony J Costello
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2010-09-07

7.  Surgical site infection prevention: the importance of operative duration and blood transfusion--results of the first American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Best Practices Initiative.

Authors:  Darrell A Campbell; William G Henderson; Michael J Englesbe; Bruce L Hall; Michael O'Reilly; Dale Bratzler; E Patchen Dellinger; Leigh Neumayer; Barbara L Bass; Matthew M Hutter; James Schwartz; Clifford Ko; Kamal Itani; Steven M Steinberg; Allan Siperstein; Robert G Sawyer; Douglas J Turner; Shukri F Khuri
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2008-10-10       Impact factor: 6.113

8.  Case report of a robotic-assisted laparoscopic repair of a giant incarcerated recurrent inguinal hernia containing bladder and ureters.

Authors:  Lawrence N Cetrulo; Justin Harmon; Jorge Ortiz; Daniel Canter; Amit R T Joshi
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 2.547

9.  Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair.

Authors:  Kimberly E Waite; Mark A Herman; Patrick J Doyle
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-04-25

10.  Standard laparoscopic versus robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair.

Authors:  Jeremy A Warren; William S Cobb; Joseph A Ewing; Alfredo M Carbonell
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-06-10       Impact factor: 4.584

View more
  18 in total

1.  Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a comprehensive cost analysis.

Authors:  Walaa F Abdelmoaty; Christy M Dunst; Chris Neighorn; Lee L Swanstrom; Chet W Hammill
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Current status of single-port versus multi-port approach in laparoscopic inguinal hernia mesh repair: an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  K Perivoliotis; G Tzovaras; C Sarakatsianou; I Baloyiannis
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 4.739

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

Authors:  B Pokala; P R Armijo; L Flores; D Hennings; D Oleynikov
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2019-05-09       Impact factor: 4.739

4.  Robot-assisted abdominal wall surgery: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

Authors:  N A Henriksen; K K Jensen; F Muysoms
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 4.739

5.  Primary inguinal hernia: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, totally extraperitoneal, and robotic preperitoneal repair.

Authors:  A Aiolfi; M Cavalli; G Micheletto; F Lombardo; G Bonitta; A Morlacchi; P G Bruni; G Campanelli; D Bona
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 4.739

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

Authors:  A Aiolfi; M Cavalli; G Micheletto; P G Bruni; F Lombardo; C Perali; G Bonitta; D Bona
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 4.739

7.  Application of a novel material in the inguinal region using a totally percutaneous approach in an animal model: a new potential technique?

Authors:  M E Giménez; C F Davrieux; E Serra; M Palermo; E J Houghton; G Alonci; E Piantanida; A Garcia Vazquez; V Lindner; B Dallemagne; M Diana; J Marescaux; L De Cola
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2019-07-16       Impact factor: 4.739

Review 8.  Robot-assisted groin hernia repair is primarily performed by specialized surgeons: a scoping review.

Authors:  Danni Lip Hansen; Anders Gram-Hanssen; Siv Fonnes; Jacob Rosenberg
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2022-07-05

Review 9.  Spin is present in the majority of articles evaluating robot-assisted groin hernia repair: a systematic review.

Authors:  Danni Lip Hansen; Siv Fonnes; Jacob Rosenberg
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic groin hernia repair: observational case-control study on the operative time during the learning curve.

Authors:  Filip Muysoms; Stijn Van Cleven; Iris Kyle-Leinhase; Conrad Ballecer; Archana Ramaswamy
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.