Melissa LaPinska1,2, Kyle Kleppe3,4, Lars Webb3,4, Thomas G Stewart5, Molly Olson6. 1. University Health Systems, University of Tennessee Medical Center, 1934 Alcoa Highway, Suite D-285, Knoxville, TN, 37920, USA. MSPhillips1@utmck.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Knoxville, TN, USA. MSPhillips1@utmck.edu. 3. University Health Systems, University of Tennessee Medical Center, 1934 Alcoa Highway, Suite D-285, Knoxville, TN, 37920, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Knoxville, TN, USA. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 6. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia repair (VHR) is a commonly performed procedure and is especially prevalent in patients who have undergone previous open abdominal surgery: up to 28% of patients who have undergone laparotomy will develop a ventral hernia. There is increasing interest in robotic-assisted VHR (RVHR) as a minimally invasive approach to VHR not requiring myofascial release and in RVHR outcomes relative to outcomes associated with laparoscopic VHR (LVHR). We hypothesized real-world evidence from the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC) database will indicate comparable clinical outcomes from RVHR and LVHR approaches not employing myofascial release. METHODS: Retrospective, comparative analysis of prospectively collected data describing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted elective ventral hernia repair procedures reported in the multi-institutional AHSQC database. A one-to-one propensity score matching algorithm identified comparable groups of patients to adjust for potential selection bias that could result from surgeon choice of repair approach. RESULTS: Matched data describe preoperative characteristics and perioperative outcomes in 615 patients in each group. The following significant differences were observed among the 11 outcomes that were pre-specified. Operative time tended to be longer for the RVHR group compared to the LVHR group (p < 0.001). Length of stay differed between the two groups; while both groups had a median length of stay of 0, stay lengths tended to be longer in the LVHR group (p < 0.001). Rates of conversion to laparotomy were fewer for the RVHR group: < 1% and 2%, respectively (p = 0.007). Through 30 days, there were fewer RVHR patient-clinic visits (p = 0.038). CONCLUSION: Both RVHR and LVHR perioperative results compare favorably with each other in most measures. Differences favored RVHR in terms of shorter LOS, fewer conversions to laparotomy, and fewer postoperative clinic visits; differences favored LVHR in terms of shorter operative times.
BACKGROUND:Ventral hernia repair (VHR) is a commonly performed procedure and is especially prevalent in patients who have undergone previous open abdominal surgery: up to 28% of patients who have undergone laparotomy will develop a ventral hernia. There is increasing interest in robotic-assisted VHR (RVHR) as a minimally invasive approach to VHR not requiring myofascial release and in RVHR outcomes relative to outcomes associated with laparoscopic VHR (LVHR). We hypothesized real-world evidence from the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC) database will indicate comparable clinical outcomes from RVHR and LVHR approaches not employing myofascial release. METHODS: Retrospective, comparative analysis of prospectively collected data describing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted elective ventral hernia repair procedures reported in the multi-institutional AHSQC database. A one-to-one propensity score matching algorithm identified comparable groups of patients to adjust for potential selection bias that could result from surgeon choice of repair approach. RESULTS: Matched data describe preoperative characteristics and perioperative outcomes in 615 patients in each group. The following significant differences were observed among the 11 outcomes that were pre-specified. Operative time tended to be longer for the RVHR group compared to the LVHR group (p < 0.001). Length of stay differed between the two groups; while both groups had a median length of stay of 0, stay lengths tended to be longer in the LVHR group (p < 0.001). Rates of conversion to laparotomy were fewer for the RVHR group: < 1% and 2%, respectively (p = 0.007). Through 30 days, there were fewer RVHR patient-clinic visits (p = 0.038). CONCLUSION: Both RVHR and LVHR perioperative results compare favorably with each other in most measures. Differences favored RVHR in terms of shorter LOS, fewer conversions to laparotomy, and fewer postoperative clinic visits; differences favored LVHR in terms of shorter operative times.
Authors: Paul D Colavita; Victor B Tsirline; Amanda L Walters; Amy E Lincourt; Igor Belyansky; B Todd Heniford Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ivy N Haskins; David M Krpata; Michael J Rosen; Arielle J Perez; Luciano Tastaldi; Robert S Butler; Steven Rosenblatt; Ajita S Prabhu Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Richard A Pierce; Jennifer A Spitler; Margaret M Frisella; Brent D Matthews; L Michael Brunt Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2006-12-16 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Linda Ye; Christopher P Childers; Michael de Virgilio; Rivfka Shenoy; Michael A Mederos; Selene S Mak; Meron M Begashaw; Marika S Booth; Paul G Shekelle; Mark Wilson; William Gunnar; Mark D Girgis; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons Journal: BJS Open Date: 2021-11-09