J D Thomas1, C K Gentle2, D M Krpata2, A S Prabhu2, A Fafaj2, S J Zolin2, S E Phillips3, S Rosenblatt2, M J Rosen2, C C Petro4. 1. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Cleveland Clinic Center for Abdominal Core Health, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 4. Cleveland Clinic Center for Abdominal Core Health, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA. petroc@ccf.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Bowel injury during laparoscopic and robotic ventral hernia repair is a rare but potentially serious complication. We sought to compare bowel injury rates during minimally invasive approaches to ventral hernia repair using a national hernia registry. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic and robotic ventral hernia repair (including cases converted-to-open) between 2013 and 2021 were retrospectively identified in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative registry. The primary outcome was bowel injury, which included partial- and full-thickness injuries and re-operations for missed enterotomies. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 10,660 patients were included (4116 laparoscopic, 6544 robotic). The laparoscopic group included more incisional hernias (68% vs 62%, p < 0.001) and similar rates of recurrent hernias (23% vs 22%, p = 0.26). A total of 109 bowel injuries were identified, with more occurring in the laparoscopic group (55 [1.3%] laparoscopic vs. 54 [0.8%] robotic; p = 0.01). Specifically, there were more full-thickness and missed enterotomies in the laparoscopic group (29 laparoscopic vs. 20 robotic; p = 0.012). Bowel injury resulted in higher rates of wound morbidity and major post-operative complications including sepsis, re-admission, and re-operation. Following adjustment for recurrent and incisional hernias, prior mesh, patient age, and hernia width, bowel injury during laparoscopic repair remained significantly more likely than bowel injury during robotic repair (OR 1.669 [95% C.I.: 1.141-2.440]; p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: In a large registry, laparoscopic ventral hernia repair is associated with an increased risk of bowel injury compared to repairs utilizing the robotic platform. Knowing the limitations of retrospective research, large national registries are well suited to explore rare outcomes which cannot be feasibly assessed with randomized controlled trials.
PURPOSE: Bowel injury during laparoscopic and robotic ventral hernia repair is a rare but potentially serious complication. We sought to compare bowel injury rates during minimally invasive approaches to ventral hernia repair using a national hernia registry. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic and robotic ventral hernia repair (including cases converted-to-open) between 2013 and 2021 were retrospectively identified in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative registry. The primary outcome was bowel injury, which included partial- and full-thickness injuries and re-operations for missed enterotomies. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 10,660 patients were included (4116 laparoscopic, 6544 robotic). The laparoscopic group included more incisional hernias (68% vs 62%, p < 0.001) and similar rates of recurrent hernias (23% vs 22%, p = 0.26). A total of 109 bowel injuries were identified, with more occurring in the laparoscopic group (55 [1.3%] laparoscopic vs. 54 [0.8%] robotic; p = 0.01). Specifically, there were more full-thickness and missed enterotomies in the laparoscopic group (29 laparoscopic vs. 20 robotic; p = 0.012). Bowel injury resulted in higher rates of wound morbidity and major post-operative complications including sepsis, re-admission, and re-operation. Following adjustment for recurrent and incisional hernias, prior mesh, patient age, and hernia width, bowel injury during laparoscopic repair remained significantly more likely than bowel injury during robotic repair (OR 1.669 [95% C.I.: 1.141-2.440]; p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: In a large registry, laparoscopic ventral hernia repair is associated with an increased risk of bowel injury compared to repairs utilizing the robotic platform. Knowing the limitations of retrospective research, large national registries are well suited to explore rare outcomes which cannot be feasibly assessed with randomized controlled trials.
Authors: Timothy P Martens; Jeffrey A Morgan; Marco M Hefti; David A Brunacci; Faisal H Cheema; Satish K Kesava; Steve Xydas; Nick C Dang; Deon W Vigilance; Takushi Kohmoto; Lyall A Gorenstein; Craig R Smith; Michael Argenziano Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: B K Poulose; S Roll; J W Murphy; B D Matthews; B Todd Heniford; G Voeller; W W Hope; M I Goldblatt; G L Adrales; M J Rosen Journal: Hernia Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: F E Muysoms; M Miserez; F Berrevoet; G Campanelli; G G Champault; E Chelala; U A Dietz; H H Eker; I El Nakadi; P Hauters; M Hidalgo Pascual; A Hoeferlin; U Klinge; A Montgomery; R K J Simmermacher; M P Simons; M Smietański; C Sommeling; T Tollens; T Vierendeels; A Kingsnorth Journal: Hernia Date: 2009-06-03 Impact factor: 4.739