Omar Yusef Kudsi1,2, Naseem Bou-Ayash3, Georges Kaoukabani4, Fahri Gokcal4. 1. Department of Surgery, Good Samaritan Medical Center, One Pearl Street, Brockton, MA, 02301, USA. omar.kudsi@tufts.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. omar.kudsi@tufts.edu. 3. Department of Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Good Samaritan Medical Center, One Pearl Street, Brockton, MA, 02301, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the advantages of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) have been described, guidelines regarding robotic inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) have yet to be established, despite its increased adoption as a minimally invasive alternative. This study compares the largest single-center cohorts of LIHR and RIHR and aims to shed light on the differences in outcomes between these two techniques. METHODS: Patients who underwent LIHR or RIHR over an 8-year period were included as part of a retrospective analysis. Variables were stratified by preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative timeframes. Complications were listed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system and comprehensive complication index (CCI®). Study groups were compared using univariate analyses and Kaplan-Meier's time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1153 patients were included: 606 patients underwent LIHR, while 547 underwent RIHR. Although demographics and comorbidities were mostly similar between the groups, the RIHR group included a higher proportion of complex hernias. Operative times were in favor of LIHR (42 vs. 53 min, p < 0.001), while RIHR had a smaller number of peritoneal breaches (0.4 vs. 3.8%, p < 0.001) as well as conversions (0.2 vs. 2.8%, p < 0.001). The number of patients lost-to-follow-up and the average follow-up times were similar (p = 0.821 and p = 0.304, respectively). Postoperatively, CCI® scores did not differ between the two groups (median = 0, p = 0.380), but Grade IIIB complications (1.2 vs. 3.3%, p = 0.025) and recurrences (0.8% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.013) were in favor of RIHR. Furthermore, estimated recurrence-free time was higher in the RIHR group [p = 0.032; 99.7 months (95% CI 98.8-100.5) vs. 97.6 months (95% CI 95.9-99.3). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that RIHR may confer advantages over LIHR in terms of addressing more complex repairs while simultaneously reducing conversion and recurrence rates, at the expense of prolonged operation times. Further large-scale prospective studies and trials are needed to validate these findings and better understand whether RIHR offers substantial clinical benefit compared with LIHR.
BACKGROUND: Although the advantages of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) have been described, guidelines regarding robotic inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) have yet to be established, despite its increased adoption as a minimally invasive alternative. This study compares the largest single-center cohorts of LIHR and RIHR and aims to shed light on the differences in outcomes between these two techniques. METHODS: Patients who underwent LIHR or RIHR over an 8-year period were included as part of a retrospective analysis. Variables were stratified by preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative timeframes. Complications were listed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system and comprehensive complication index (CCI®). Study groups were compared using univariate analyses and Kaplan-Meier's time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1153 patients were included: 606 patients underwent LIHR, while 547 underwent RIHR. Although demographics and comorbidities were mostly similar between the groups, the RIHR group included a higher proportion of complex hernias. Operative times were in favor of LIHR (42 vs. 53 min, p < 0.001), while RIHR had a smaller number of peritoneal breaches (0.4 vs. 3.8%, p < 0.001) as well as conversions (0.2 vs. 2.8%, p < 0.001). The number of patients lost-to-follow-up and the average follow-up times were similar (p = 0.821 and p = 0.304, respectively). Postoperatively, CCI® scores did not differ between the two groups (median = 0, p = 0.380), but Grade IIIB complications (1.2 vs. 3.3%, p = 0.025) and recurrences (0.8% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.013) were in favor of RIHR. Furthermore, estimated recurrence-free time was higher in the RIHR group [p = 0.032; 99.7 months (95% CI 98.8-100.5) vs. 97.6 months (95% CI 95.9-99.3). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that RIHR may confer advantages over LIHR in terms of addressing more complex repairs while simultaneously reducing conversion and recurrence rates, at the expense of prolonged operation times. Further large-scale prospective studies and trials are needed to validate these findings and better understand whether RIHR offers substantial clinical benefit compared with LIHR.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: John D Vossler; K Keano Pavlosky; Sarah M Murayama; Marilyn A Moucharite; Kenric M Murayama; Dean J Mikami Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2019-04-28 Impact factor: 2.192