Literature DB >> 33084881

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Robotic vs Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair With Intraperitoneal Mesh: The PROVE-IT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Clayton C Petro1, Sam Zolin1, David Krpata1, Hemasat Alkhatib1, Chao Tu2, Michael J Rosen1, Ajita S Prabhu1.   

Abstract

Importance: Despite rapid adoption of the robotic platform for ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh in the United States, there is no level I evidence comparing it with the traditional laparoscopic approach. This randomized clinical trial sought to demonstrate a clinical benefit to the robotic approach. Objective: To determine whether robotic approach to ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh would result in less postoperative pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: A registry-based, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical trial at the Cleveland Clinic Center for Abdominal Core Health, Cleveland, Ohio, completed between September 2017 and January 2020, with a minimum follow-up duration of 30 days. Two surgeons at 1 academic tertiary care hospital. Patients with primary or incisional midline ventral hernias of an anticipated width of 7 cm or less presenting in the elective setting and able to tolerate a minimally invasive repair. Interventions: Patients were randomized to a standardized laparoscopic or robotic ventral hernia repair with fascial closure and intraperitoneal mesh. Main Outcomes and Measures: The trial was powered to detect a 30% difference in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11) on the first postoperative day. Secondary end points included the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Intensity short form (3a), hernia-specific quality of life, operative time, wound morbidity, recurrence, length of stay, and cost.
Results: Seventy-five patients completed their minimally invasive hernia repair: 36 laparoscopic and 39 robotic. Baseline demographics and hernia characteristics were comparable. Robotic operations had a longer median operative time (146 vs 94 minutes; P < .001). There were 2 visceral injuries in each cohort but no full-thickness enterotomies or unplanned reoperations. There were no significant differences in NRS-11 scores preoperatively or on postoperative days 0, 1, 7, or 30. Specifically, median NRS-11 scores on the first postoperative day were the same (5 vs 5; P = .61). Likewise, postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 3a and hernia-specific quality-of-life scores, as well as length of stay and complication rates, were similar. The robotic platform adds cost (total cost ratio, 1.13 vs 0.97; P = .03), driven by the cost of additional operating room time (1.25 vs 0.85; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Laparoscopic and robotic ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh have comparable outcomes. The increased operative time and proportional cost of the robotic approach are not offset by a measurable clinical benefit. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03283982.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33084881      PMCID: PMC7578919          DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.4569

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Surg        ISSN: 2168-6254            Impact factor:   14.766


  6 in total

1.  Robotic-assisted compared with laparoscopic incisional hernia repair following oncologic surgery: short- and long-term outcomes of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Thiago Nogueira Costa; Ricardo Zugaib Abdalla; Francisco Tustumi; Ulysses Ribeiro Junior; Ivan Cecconello
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2022-03-30

2.  Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and propensity score matched studies.

Authors:  Ramkumar Mohan; Marcus Yeow; Joel Yat Seng Wong; Nicholas Syn; Sujith Wijerathne; Davide Lomanto
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2021-09-23       Impact factor: 4.739

3.  National epidemiologic trends (2008-2018) in the United States for the incidence and expenditures associated with incisional hernia in relation to abdominal surgery.

Authors:  A J Rios-Diaz; M P Morris; A N Christopher; V Patel; R B Broach; B T Heniford; J Y Hsu; J P Fischer
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2022-08-25       Impact factor: 2.920

4.  Short-term complications after minimally invasive retromuscular ventral hernia repair: no need for preoperative weight loss or smoking cessation?

Authors:  J R Ekmann; M W Christoffersen; K K Jensen
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2022-08-22       Impact factor: 2.920

5.  Clinical outcomes and cost of robotic ventral hernia repair: systematic review.

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

6.  Alternative Randomized Trial Designs in Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Simone Augustinus; Iris W J M van Goor; Johannes Berkhof; Lois A Daamen; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Tara M Mackay; I Q Molenaar; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Helena M Verkooijen; Peter M van de Ven; Marc G Besselink
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 13.787

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.