Laparoscopic versus robotic inguinal hernia repair: 1- and 2-year outcomes from the RIVAL trial

Is the robotic revolution stunting surgical skills?

This perspective piece aims to examine the impact of the growing utilization of robotic platforms in general and minimally invasive surgery on surgical trainee experience, skill level, and comfort in performing general surgical and minimally invasive procedures following completion of training. We review current literature and explore the application of robotic surgery to surgical training, where minimum case thresholds and breadth distribution are well defined, and where development of surgical technique is historically gained through delicate tissue handling with haptic feedback rather than relying on visual feedback alone. We call for careful consideration as to how best to incorporate robotics in surgical training in order to embrace technological advances without endangering the surgical proficiency of the surgeons of tomorrow.

Key message

The large-scale incorporation of robotics into general and minimally invasive surgical training is something that most, if not all, trainees must grapple with in today's world, and the proportion of robotics is increasing. This shift may significantly negatively affect trainees in terms of surgical skill upon completion of training and must be approached with an appropriate degree of concern and thoughtfulness so as to protect the surgeons of tomorrow.

Revisiting femoral hernia diagnosis rates by patient sex in inguinal hernia repairs

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommend MIS repairs for females with inguinal hernias, despite limited evidence. We investigated rates of femoral hernias intraoperatively noted during MIS and Lichtenstein repairs in females.

METHODS

ACHQC was queried for adult females undergoing inguinal hernia repair between January 2014-November 2022. Outcomes included identified femoral hernia and size, hernia recurrence, quality of life, and sex-based recurrence.

RESULTS

1357 and 316 females underwent MIS and Lichtenstein inguinal repair respectively. Femoral hernias were identified more frequently in MIS than open repairs (27%vs12%; (p ​< ​0.001). Most femoral hernias in MIS (61%) and Lichtenstein repairs (62%) were <1.5 ​cm(p ​< ​0.001). Identification rates of femoral hernias >3 ​cm were 1% overall(p ​= ​0.09). Surgeon and patient-reported recurrences were similar between approaches at 1-5-years for females(p ​> ​0.05 for all) and similar between sexes(p ​> ​0.05).

CONCLUSION

Most incidental femoral hernias are small and both repair approaches demonstrated similar outcomes. The recommendation for MIS inguinal hernia repairs in females is potentially overstated.

The current application and evidence for robotic approach in abdominal surgery: A narrative literature review

The current application of robotic surgery is evolving at a high pace in the current years. The technical advantages enable several abdominal surgical procedures to be performed minimally invasive instead of open surgery. Furthermore, procedures previously performed successfully using standard laparoscopy are now performed with a robotic approach, with conflicting results. The present narrative review reports the current literature on the robotic surgical procedures typically performed in a typical Scandinavian surgical department: colorectal, hernia, hepato-biliary, and esophagogastric surgery.

Robot-assisted surgery in thoracic and visceral indications: an updated systematic review

BACKGROUND

In surgical advancements, robot-assisted surgery (RAS) holds several promises like shorter hospital stays, reduced complications, and improved technical capabilities over standard care. Despite extensive evidence, the actual patient benefits of RAS remain unclear. Thus, our systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in visceral and thoracic surgery compared to laparoscopic or open surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in two databases (Medline via Ovid and The Cochrane Library) in April 2023. The search was restricted to 14 predefined thoracic and visceral procedures and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Synthesis of data on critical outcomes followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, and the risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's Tool Version 1.

RESULTS

For five out of 14 procedures, no evidence could be identified. A total of 20 RCTs and five follow-up publications met the inclusion criteria. Overall, most studies had either not reported or measured patient-relevant endpoints. The majority of outcomes showed comparable results between study groups. However, RAS demonstrated potential advantages in specific endpoints (e.g., blood loss), yet these findings relied on a limited number of low-quality studies. Statistically significant RAS benefits were also noted in some outcomes for certain indications-recurrence, quality of life, transfusions, and hospitalisation. Safety outcomes were improved for patients undergoing robot-assisted gastrectomy, as well as rectal and liver resection. Regarding operation time, results were contradicting.

CONCLUSION

In summary, conclusive assertions on RAS superiority are impeded by inconsistent and insufficient low-quality evidence across various outcomes and procedures. While RAS may offer potential advantages in some surgical areas, healthcare decisions should also take into account the limited quality of evidence, financial implications, and environmental factors. Furthermore, considerations should extend to the ergonomic aspects for maintaining a healthy surgical environment.

Meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair for inguinal hernia

BACKGROUND

Inguinal hernia is a common global disease. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal repair (RTAPP) and laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair (LTAPP) for inguinal hernia.

METHODS

We conducted a thorough search in Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed for relevant clinical studies. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, the quality of selected studies was assessed using the Jadad scale for randomized controlled studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of ten studies were included, comprising two randomized controlled studies and eight non-randomized controlled studies. Meta-analysis results revealed no statistically significant differences between the RTAPP group and the LTAPP group regarding hospital stay [MD = 0.21 days, 95% CI (-0.09, 0.51), P = 0.17], incidence of seroma [OR = 0.85, 95% CI(0.45, 1.59), P = 0.61], overall complication rate [OR = 1.22, 95% CI(0.68, 2.18), P = 0.51], readmission rate [OR = 1.31, 95% CI(0.23, 7.47), P = 0.76], and recurrence rate [OR = 0.82, 95% CI(0.22, 3.07), P = 0.77]. However, the RTAPP group had longer operation time compared to the LTAPP group [MD = 14.02 minutes, 95% CI (6.65, 21.39), P = 0.0002], and the cost of the RTAPP procedure was higher than that of the LTAPP procedure [MD = $4.17 thousand, 95% CI (2.59, 5.76), P<0.00001].

CONCLUSION

RTAPP for inguinal hernia is a safe and feasible approach, however, it is associated with increased operation time and treatment costs.

Abdominal Wall Hernias-State of the Art of Laparoscopic versus Robotic Surgery

Abdominal wall hernia repair, a common surgical procedure, includes various techniques to minimize postoperative complications and enhance outcomes. This review focuses on the comparison between laparoscopic and robotic approaches in treating inguinal and ventral hernias, presenting the ongoing situation of this topic. A systematic search identified relevant studies comparing laparoscopic and robotic approaches for inguinal and ventral hernias. Randomized control trials, retrospective, and prospective studies published after 1 January 2000, were included. Search terms such as hernia, inguinal, ventral, laparoscopy, robotic, and surgery were used. A total of 23 articles were included for analysis. Results indicated similar short-term outcomes for robotic and laparoscopic techniques in inguinal hernia repair, with robotic groups experiencing less postoperative pain. However, longer operative times and higher costs were associated with robotic repair. Robotic ventral hernia repair demonstrated potential benefits, including shorter hospital stay, lower recurrence and lower reoperation rates. While robotic surgery offers advantages such as shorter hospital stays, faster recovery, and less postoperative pain, challenges including costs and training requirements need consideration. The choice between laparoscopic and robotic approaches for abdominal wall hernias should be tailored based on individual surgeon expertise and resource availability, emphasizing a balanced evaluation of benefits and challenges.

Robotic surgery for inguinal and ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopy or open surgery for inguinal (IHR) and ventral (VHR) hernia repair.

METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE were searched up to July 2022. Meta-analyses were performed for postoperative complications, surgical site infections (SSI), seroma/hematoma, hernia recurrence, operating time (OT), intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative bowel injury, conversion to open surgery, length of stay (LOS), mortality, reoperation rate, readmission rate, use of opioids, time to return to work and time to return to normal activities.

RESULTS

Overall, 64 studies were selected and 58 were used for pooled data analyses: 35 studies (227 242 patients) deal with IHR and 32 (158 384 patients) with VHR. Robotic IHR was associated with lower hernia recurrence (OR 0.54; 95%CI 0.29, 0.99; I2: 0%) compared to laparoscopic IHR, and lower use of opioids compared to open IHR (OR 0.46; 95%CI 0.25, 0.84; I2: 55.8%). Robotic VHR was associated with lower bowel injuries (OR 0.59; 95%CI 0.42, 0.85; I2: 0%) and less conversions to open surgery (OR 0.51; 95%CI 0.43, 0.60; I2: 0%) compared to laparoscopy. Compared to open surgery, robotic VHR was associated with lower postoperative complications (OR 0.61; 95%CI 0.39, 0.96; I2: 68%), less SSI (OR 0.47; 95%CI 0.31, 0.72; I2: 0%), less intraoperative blood loss (- 95 mL), shorter LOS (- 3.4 day), and less hospital readmissions (OR 0.66; 95%CI 0.44, 0.99; I2: 24.7%). However, both robotic IHR and VHR were associated with significantly longer OT compared to laparoscopy and open surgery.

CONCLUSION

These results support robotic surgery as a safe, effective, and viable alternative for IHR and VHR as it can brings several intraoperative and postoperative advantages over laparoscopy and open surgery.

Definition of Mesh Weight and Pore Size in Groin Hernia Repair: A Systematic Scoping Review of Randomised Controlled Trials

Introduction: Groin hernia literature often uses the terms light- and heavyweight and small or large pores to describe meshes. There is no universal definition of these terms, and the aim of this scoping review was to assess how mesh weight and pore sizes are defined in the groin hernia literature. Methods: In this systematic scoping review, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. We included randomised controlled trials with adults undergoing groin hernia repair with the Lichtenstein or laparoscopic techniques using a flat permanent polypropylene or polyester mesh. Studies had to use the terms lightweight, mediumweight, or heavyweight to be included, and the outcome was to report how researchers defined these terms as well as pore sizes. Results: We included 48 studies with unique populations. The weight of lightweight meshes ranged from 28 to 60 g/m2 with a median of 39 g/m2, and the pore size ranged from 1.0 to 4.0 mm with a median of 1.6 mm. The weight of heavyweight meshes ranged from 72 to 116 g/m2 with a median of 88 g/m2, and the pore size ranged from 0.08 to 1.8 mm with a median of 1.0 mm. Only one mediumweight mesh was used weighing 55 g/m2 with a pore size of 0.75 mm. Conclusion: There seems to be a consensus that meshes weighing less than 60 g/m2 are defined as lightweight and meshes weighing more than 70 g/m2 are defined as heavyweight. The weight terms were used independently of pore sizes, which slightly overlapped between lightweight and heavyweight meshes.