Trends and outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic inguinal hernia repair in the veterans affairs system

The association of permanent versus absorbable fixation on developing chronic post-herniorrhaphy groin pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair

INTRODUCTION

Fixation of mesh during minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair is thought to contribute to chronic post-herniorrhaphy groin pain (CGP). In contrast to permanent tacks, absorbable tacks are hypothesized to minimize the likelihood of CGP. This study aimed to compare the rates of CGP after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair between absorbable versus permanent fixation at maximum follow-up.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (NCT03835351). All patients were contacted at maximum follow-up after surgery to administer EuraHS quality of life (QoL) surveys. The pain and restriction of activity subdomains of the survey were utilized. The primary outcome was rate of CGP, as defined by a EuraHS QoL pain domain score ≥ 4 measured at ≥ 1 year postoperatively. The secondary outcomes were pain and restriction of activity domain scores and hernia recurrence at maximum follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 338 patients were contacted at a mean follow-up of 28 ± 11 months. 181 patients received permanent tacks and 157 patients received absorbable tacks during their repair. At maximum follow-up, the rates of CGP (27 [15%] vs 28 [18%], P = 0.47), average pain scores (1.78 ± 4.38 vs 2.32 ± 5.40, P = 0.22), restriction of activity scores (1.39 ± 4.32 vs 2.48 ± 7.45, P = 0.18), and the number of patients who reported an inguinal bulge (18 [9.9%] vs 15 [9.5%], P = 0.9) were similar between patients with permanent versus absorbable tacks. On multivariable analysis, there was no significant difference in the odds of CGP between the two groups (OR 1.23, 95% CI [0.60, 2.50]).

CONCLUSION

Mesh fixation with permanent tacks does not appear to increase the risk of CGP after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair when compared to fixation with absorbable tacks. Prospective trials are needed to further evaluate this relationship.

Trends in minimally invasive and open inguinal hernia repair: an analysis of ACGME general surgery case logs

BACKGROUND

Groin hernia repair is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures and is often performed by surgical interns and junior residents. While traditionally performed open, minimally invasive (MIS) groin hernia repair has become an increasingly popular approach. The purpose of this study was to determine the trends in MIS and open inguinal and femoral hernia repair in general surgery residency training over the past two decades.

METHODS

Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) national case log data of general surgery residents from 1999 through 2022 were reviewed. We collected means and standard deviations of open and MIS inguinal and femoral hernia repairs. Linear regression and ANOVA were used to identify trends in the average annual number of open and MIS hernia repairs logged by residents. Cases were distinguished between level of resident trainees: surgeon-chief (SC) and surgeon-junior (SJ).

RESULTS

From July 1999 to June 2022, the average annual MIS inguinal and femoral hernia repairs logged by general surgery residents significantly increased, from 7.6 to 47.9 cases (p < 0.001), and the average annual open inguinal and femoral hernia repairs logged by general surgery residents significantly decreased, from 51.9 to 39.7 cases (p < 0.001). SJ resident results were consistent with this overall trend. For SC residents, the volume of both MIS and open hernia repairs significantly increased (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ACGME case log data indicates a trend of general surgery residents logging overall fewer numbers of open inguinal and femoral hernia repairs, and a larger proportion of open repairs by chief residents. This trend warrants attention and further study as it may represent a skill or knowledge gap with significant impact of surgical training.

Comparing Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Inguinal hernia repair is a common surgical intervention. Advancements in minimally invasive techniques, specifically laparoscopic (LR) and robot-assisted (RR) approaches, have reshaped the landscape of surgical options. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic and robot-assisted inguinal hernia repair through a comprehensive review of the literature. A systematic search of databases was conducted to identify relevant studies published up to November 30, 2023. Fifteen studies, encompassing a total of 64,568 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Pooled estimates for key outcomes, including duration of operation, overall complications, and surgical site infection (SSI), were calculated using random-effects models. This meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in the duration of surgery, favoring laparoscopic repair over robot-assisted techniques (mean difference: 26.85 minutes, 95% CI (1.16, 52.54)). Overall complications did not significantly differ between the two approaches (odds ratio: 1.54, 95% CI (0.83, 2.85)). However, a significantly greater risk of SSI was identified for robot-assisted procedures (odds ratio: 3.32, 95% CI (2.63, 4.19)). This meta-analysis provides insights into the comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic and robot-assisted inguinal hernia repair. While laparoscopy has shorter operative times and comparable overall complication rates, the increased risk of SSI during robot-assisted procedures necessitates careful consideration in clinical decision-making. Surgeons and healthcare providers should weigh these findings according to patient characteristics, emphasizing a personalized approach to surgical decision-making. The evolving landscape of inguinal hernia repair warrants ongoing research to refine techniques and optimize outcomes for the benefit of patients undergoing these procedures.

Current trends and outcomes for unilateral groin hernia repairs in the United States using the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database: A multicenter propensity score matching analysis of 30-day and 1-year outcomes

BACKGROUND

Different unilateral groin hernia repair approaches have been developed in the last 2 decades. The most commonly done approaches are open inguinal hernia repair by the Lichenstein technique, laparoscopic approach by either total extraperitoneal or transabdominal preperitoneal, and robotic transabdominal preperitoneal approach. Hence, this study aimed to compare early and late postoperative outcomes in patients who underwent unilateral robotic transabdominal preperitoneal, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, and laparoscopic total extraperitoneal, and open groin hernia repair using a United States national hernia database, the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative Database.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database was retrospectively reviewed, including all adult patients who underwent elective unilateral groin hernia repair from 2015 to 2022, with a 1:1 propensity score match analysis conducted for balanced groups. The univariate analysis compared the groups across the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative timeframes.

RESULTS

The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database identified 14,320 patients who underwent elective unilateral groin hernia repair and had documented 30 days of follow-up. Propensity score matching stratified 1,598 patients to each group (total of 6,392). The median age was 64 years (interquartile range 53-74) for open groin hernia repair, whereas 60 (interquartile range 47-69) for laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, 62 (interquartile range 48-70) for laparoscopic total extraperitoneal, and 60 (interquartile range 47-70) for robotic transabdominal preperitoneal were noted. Open groin hernia repair had more American Society of Anesthesiologists score 4 (52, 3%) patients (P < .001). A painful bulge was the most common indication (>85%). Operating room time >2 hours was more significant in the robotic transabdominal preperitoneal group (123, 8%; P < .001). Seroma rate was higher in the laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (134, 8%; P < .001). A 1-year analysis had 1,103 patients. Hematoma, surgical site infection, readmission, reoperation, and hernia recurrence at 30 days or 1 year did not differ, with an overall recurrence rate of 6% (n = 67) at 1 year (P = .33). In patients with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, the robotic approach had lower rates of surgical site occurrence (n = 12, 4%; P = .002) and seroma (n = 5, 2%; P < .001) compared with the other groups. When evaluating recurrence 1 year after surgery, the robotic transabdominal preperitoneal group had 10% versus 18% open groin hernia repair, 11% laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, and 18% laparoscopic total extraperitoneal, but it was not statistically significant (P = .53).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in readmission, reoperation, and surgical site infection among the surgical techniques at 30 days. However, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal was associated with more seromas. Hernia recurrence at 1 year was similar across groups; the robotic approach had the lowest recurrence rate among all 3 repairs but did not reach statistical significance. The robotic approach performed better in patients with a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 for surgical site occurrence and seroma than in other surgical techniques.

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.

Comparing functional outcomes in minimally invasive versus open inguinal hernia repair using the army physical fitness test

PURPOSE

The advantages of minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair (MIHR) over open hernia repair (OHR) continue to be debated. We compared MIHR to OHR by utilizing the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) as an outcome measure.

METHODS

The APFT is a three-component test scored on a normalized 300 point scale taken semiannually by active-duty military. We identified 1119 patients who met inclusion criteria: 588 in the OHR group and 531 in the MIHR group. Changes in APFT scores, time on post-operative duty restrictions (military profile), and time interval to first post-operative APFT were compared using regression analysis.

RESULTS

Postoperatively, no APFT score change difference was observed between the OHR or MIHR groups (- 7.3 ± 30 versus - 5.5 ± 27.7, p = 0.2989). Service members undergoing OHR and MIHR underwent their first post-operative APFT at equal mean timeframes (6.6 ± 5 months versus 6.7 ± 5.1, p = 0.74). No difference was observed for time in months spent on an official temporary duty restriction (military profile) for either OHR or MIHR (0.16 ± 0.16 versus 0.15 ± 0.17, p = 0.311). On adjusted regression analysis, higher pre-operative APFT scores and BMI ≥ 30 were independently associated with reduction in post-operative APFT scores. Higher-baseline APFT scores were independently associated with less time on a post-operative profile, whereas higher BMI (≥ 30) and lower rank were independently associated with longer post-operative profile duration. Higher-baseline APFT scores and lower rank were independently associated with shorter time intervals to the first post-operative APFT.

CONCLUSION

Overall, no differences in post-operative APFT scores, military profile time, or time to first post-operative APFT were observed between minimally invasive or open hernioplasty in this military population.

Differences in in-hospital outcomes and healthcare utilization for laparoscopic versus open approach for emergency inguinal hernia repair: a nationwide analysis

PURPOSE

There has been a growing debate of whether laparoscopic or open surgical techniques are superior for inguinal hernia repair. For incarcerated and strangulated inguinal hernias, the laparoscopic approach remains controversial. This study aims to be the first nationwide analysis to compare clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes between laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair in an emergency setting.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the National Inpatient Sample was performed. All patients who underwent laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) and open inguinal hernia repair (OIHR) between October 2015 and December 2019 were included. The primary outcome was mortality, and secondary outcomes include post-operative complications, ICU admission, length of stay (LOS), and total admission cost. Two approaches were compared using univariate and multivariate logistic and linear regression.

RESULTS

Between the years 2015 and 2019, 17,205 patients were included. Among these, 213 patients underwent LIHR and 16,992 underwent OIHR. No difference was observed between laparoscopic and open repair for mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.80, 95% CI [0.25, 2.61], p = 0.714). Additionally, there was no significant difference between groups for post-operative ICU admission (OR 1.11, 95% CI [0.74, 1.67], p = 0.614), post-operative complications (OR 1.09, 95% CI [0.76, 1.56], p = 0.647), LOS (mean difference [MD]: -0.02 days, 95% CI [- 0.56, 0.52], p = 0.934), or total admission cost (MD: $3,028.29, 95% CI [$- 110.94, $6167.53], p = 0.059).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is comparable to the open inguinal hernia repair with respect to low rates of morbidity, mortality as well as healthcare resource utilization.

Comparison of post-operative outcomes of large direct inguinal hernia repairs based on operative approach (open vs. laparoscopic vs. robotic) using the ACHQC (Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative) database

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic hernia repairs for direct, unilateral inguinal hernia repairs, with particular focus on 30-day morbidity surgical site infection (SSI); surgical site occurrence (SSO); SSI/SSO requiring procedural interventions (SSOPI), reoperation, and recurrence.

METHODS

The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database was queried for patients undergoing elective, primary, > 3 cm medial, unilateral inguinal hernia repairs with an open (Lichtenstein), laparoscopic, or robotic operative approach. Preoperative demographics and patient characteristics, operative techniques, and outcomes were studied. A 1-to-1 propensity score matching algorithm was used for each operative approach pair to reduce selection bias.

RESULTS

There were 848 operations included: 297 were open, 285 laparoscopic, and 266 robotic hernia repairs. There was no evidence of a difference in primary endpoints at 30 days including SSI, SSO, SSI/SSO requiring procedural interventions (SSOPI), reoperation, readmission, or recurrence for any of the operative approach pairs (open vs. robotic, open vs. laparoscopic, robotic vs. laparoscopic). For the open vs. laparoscopic groups, QoL score at 30 day was lower (better) for laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery (OR 0.53 [0.31, 0.92], p = 0.03), but this difference did not hold at the 1-year survey (OR 1.37 [0.48, 3.92], p = 0.55). Similarly, patients who underwent robotic repair were more likely to have a higher (worse) 30-day QoL score (OR 2.01 [1.18, 3.42], p = 0.01), but no evidence of a difference at 1 year (OR 0.83 [0.3, 2.26] p = 0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study did not reveal significant post-operative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for large medial inguinal hernias. Surgeons should continue to tailor operative approach based on patient needs and their own surgical expertise.

Trends in Robot-Assisted Procedures for General Surgery in the Veterans Health Administration

INTRODUCTION

Implementation of robot-assisted procedures is growing. Utilization within the country's largest healthcare network, the Veterans Health Administration, is unclear.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using data from the Department of Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse from January 2015 through December 2019. Trends in robot utilization for cholecystectomy, ventral hernia repair, and inguinal hernia repair were characterized nationally and regionally by Veterans Integrated Services Network. Patients, who underwent laparoscopic repairs for these procedures and open hernia repairs, were included to determine proportion performed robotically.

RESULTS

We identified 119,191 patients, of which 5689 (4.77%) received a robotic operation. The proportion of operations performed robotically increased from 1.49% to 10.55% (7.08-fold change; slope, 2.14% per year; 95% confidence interval [0.79%, 3.49%]). Ventral hernia repair had the largest growth in robotic procedures (1.51% to 13.94%; 9.23-fold change; slope, 2.86% per year; 95% confidence interval [1.04%, 4.68%]). Regions with the largest increase in robotic utilization were primarily along the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot utilization in general surgery is increasing at different rates across the United States in the Veterans Health Administration. Future studies should investigate the regional disparities and drivers of this approach.

Increasing volume but declining resident autonomy in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: an inverse relationship

INTRODUCTION

With improved technology and technique, laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) has become a valid option for repairing both initial and recurrent inguinal hernia. Surgical residents must learn both techniques to prepare for future practice. We examined resident operative autonomy between LIHR and open inguinal hernia repair (OIHR) across the Veterans Affairs (VA) system.

METHODS

Utilizing the VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, we examined inguinal hernia repairs based on the principal procedure code at all teaching VA hospitals from July 2004 to September 2019. All VA cases are coded for level of supervision at the time of surgery: attending primary surgeon (AP); attending scrubbed but resident is a primary surgeon (AR), and resident primary with attending supervising but not scrubbed (RP). Primary outcomes were the proportion of LIHR versus OIHR and resident autonomy over time.

RESULTS

A total of 127,497 hernia repair cases were examined (106,892 OIHR and 20,605 LIHR). There was a higher proportion of RP (8.7% vs 2.2%) and lower proportion of AP (23.9% vs 28.4%) within OIHR compared to LIHR (p < 0.001). The overall proportion of LIHR repairs increased from 9 to 28% (p < 0.001). RP cases decreased for LIHR from 9 to 1% and for OIHR from 17 to 4%, while AP cases increased for LIHR from 16 to 42% and for OIHR from 18 to 30% (all p < 0.001). For RP cases, mortality (0 vs 0.2%, p > 0.99) and complication rates (1.1% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.35) were no different.

CONCLUSIONS

LIHR at VA hospitals has tripled over the past 15 years, now compromising nearly one-third of all inguinal hernia repairs; the majority are initial hernias. Despite this increase, resident autonomy in LIHR cases declined alarmingly. The results demonstrate an urgent need to integrate enhanced minimally invasive training into a general surgery curriculum to prepare residents for future independent practice.

Robot-Assisted General Surgery Procedures at the Veterans Health Administration: A Comparison of Surgical Techniques

INTRODUCTION

The use of the robot in general surgery has exploded in the last decade. The Veterans Health Administration presents a unique opportunity to study differences between surgical approaches due to the ability to control for health system and insurance variability. This study compares clinical outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic or open techniques for three general surgery procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study using the Veterans Affair Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Operative time, length of stay, and complications were compared for cholecystectomy (robot-assisted versus laparoscopic), ventral, and inguinal hernia repair (robot-assisted versus laparoscopic or open) from 2015 to 2019.

RESULTS

More than 80,000 cases were analyzed (21,652 cholecystectomy, 9214 ventral hernia repairs, and 51,324 inguinal hernia repairs). Median operative time was longer for all robot-assisted approaches as compared to laparoscopic or open techniques with the largest difference seen between open and robot-assisted primary ventral hernia repair (unadjusted difference of 93 min, P < 0.001). Median length of stay was between 1 and 4 d and significantly for robot-assisted ventral hernia repairs (versus open, P < 0.01; versus lap for recurrent hernia, P < 0.05). Specific postoperative outcomes of interest were overall low with few differences between techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

While the robotic platform was associated with longer operative time, these findings must be interpreted in the context of a learning curve and indications for use (i.e., use of the robot for technically challenging cases). Our findings suggest that at the Veterans Health Administration, the robot is as safe a platform for common general surgery procedures as traditional approaches. Future studies should focus on patient-centered outcomes including pain and cosmesis.

Robot-assisted groin hernia repair is primarily performed by specialized surgeons: a scoping review

Surgical residents routinely participate in open and laparoscopic groin hernia repairs. The increasing popularity of robot-assisted groin hernia repair could lead to an educational loss for residents. We aimed to explore the involvement of surgical specialists and surgical residents, i.e., non-specialists, in robot-assisted groin hernia repair. The scoping review was reported according to PRISMA-ScR guideline. A protocol was uploaded at Open Science Framework, and a systematic search was conducted in four databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science. Included studies had to report on robot-assisted groin hernia repairs. Data charting was conducted in duplicate. Of the 67 included studies, 85% of the studies described that the robot-assisted groin hernia repair was performed by a surgical specialist. The rest of the studies had no description of the primary operating surgeon. Only 13% of the included studies reported that a resident attended the robot-assisted groin hernia repair. Thus, robot-assisted groin hernia repair was mainly performed by surgical specialists, and robot-assisted groin hernia repair therefore seems to be underutilized to educate surgical residents.

Robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to review the latest evidence on the robotic approach (RHR) for inguinal hernia repair comparing the pooled outcome of this technique with those of the standard laparoscopic procedure (LHR). A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for studies published between 2010 and 2021 concerning the comparison between RHR versus LHR. After screening 582 articles, 9 articles with a total of 64,426 patients (7589 RHRs) were eligible for inclusion. Among preoperative variables, a pooled higher ratio of ASA > 2 patients was found in the robotic group (12.4 vs 8.6%, p < 0.001). Unilateral hernia repair was more common in the laparoscopic group (79.9 vs 68.1, p < 0.001). Overall, operative time was longer in the robotic group (160 vs 90 min, p < 0.001); this was confirmed also in the sub-analysis on unilateral procedures (88 vs 68 min, p = 0.040). The operative time for robotic bilateral repair was similar to the laparoscopic one (111 vs 100, p = 0.797). Conversion to open surgery was 0% in the robotic group. The pooled rate of chronic pain and postoperative complications was similar between the groups. The standardized mean difference MD of the costs between LHR versus RHR was − 3270$ (95% CI – 4757 to − 1782, p < 0.001). In conclusion, laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair have similar safety parameters and postoperative outcomes. Robotic approach may require longer operative time if the unilateral repair is performed. Costs are higher in the robotic group.