Comparing rates of bowel injury for laparoscopic and robotic ventral hernia repair: a retrospective analysis of the abdominal core health quality collaborative

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.

Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair

The laparoscopic approach to ventral hernia repair is a safe and effective approach for both elective and emergent repair. The preoperative technical considerations include assessment of incarceration and potential for extensive adhesiolysis, size of defect, and atypical hernia locations. Preoperative considerations include weight loss and lifestyle modification. There are multiple methods of fascial defect closure and mesh fixation that the surgeon may consider via a laparoscopic approach, making it adaptable to varying clinical scenarios and anatomic challenges. Compared with open repair laparoscopic repair is associated with reduced surgical wound site infection, and compared with robotic repair outcomes are similar.

The incidence and impact of enterotomy during laparoscopic and robotic ventral hernia repair: a nationwide readmissions analysis

INTRODUCTION

Our aim was to define the national incidence of enterotomy (ENT) during minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (MIS-VHR) and evaluate impact on short-term outcomes.

METHODS

The 2016-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried using ICD-10 codes for MIS-VHR and enterotomy. All patients had 3-months follow-up. Patients were stratified by elective status; patients without ENT (No-ENT) were compared against ENT patients.

RESULTS

In total, 30,025 patients underwent LVHR and ENT occurred in 388 (1.3%) patients; 19,188 (63.9%) cases were elective including 244 elective-ENT patients. Incidence was similar between elective versus non-elective cohorts (1.27% vs 1.33%; p = 0.674). Compared to laparoscopy, ENT was more common during robotic procedures (1.2% vs 1.7%; p = 0.004). Comparison of elective-No-ENT vs elective-ENT showed that elective-ENT patients had a longer median LOS (2 vs 5 days; p < 0.001), higher mean hospital cost ($51,656 vs $76,466; p < 0.001), increased rates of mortality (0.3% vs 2.9%; p < 0.001), and higher 3-month readmission (10.1% vs 13.9%; p = 0.048). Non-elective cohort comparison demonstrated non-elective-ENT patients had a longer median LOS (4 vs 7 days; p < 0.001), higher mean hospital cost ($58,379 vs $87,850; p < 0.001), increased rates of mortality (0.7% vs 2.1%;p < 0.001), and higher 3-month readmission (13.6% vs 22.2%; p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 95% CI), higher odds of enterotomy were associated with robotic-assisted procedures (1.386, 1.095-1.754; p = 0.007) and older age (1.014, 1.004-1.024; p = 0.006). Lower odds of ENT were associated with BMI > 25 kg/m² (0.784, 0.624-0.984; p = 0.036) and metropolitan teaching vs metropolitan non-teaching (0.784, 0.622-0.987; p = 0.044). ENT patients (n = 388) were more likely to be readmitted with post-operative infection (1.9% vs 4.1%; p = 0.002) or bowel obstruction (1.0% vs 5.2%;p < 0.001) and more likely to undergo reoperation for intestinal adhesions (0.3% vs 1.0%; p = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

Inadvertent ENT occurred in 1.3% of MIS-VHRs, had similar rates between elective and urgent cases, but was more common for robotic procedures. ENT patients had a longer LOS, and increased cost and infection, readmission, re-operation and mortality rates.

[Robot-assisted extraperitoneal ventral hernia repair-Experience from the first 61 consecutive operations with eTEP and eTAR techniques]

BACKGROUND

As in many other fields of surgery, robotically assisted surgical procedures have been established in the treatment of ventral hernias in recent years. The use of the robot can combine the demands of a minimally invasive approach and retromuscular mesh placement. In addition to a transabdominal approach, these procedures can also be performed using an extraperitoneal approach.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that robotic total extraperitoneal management of abdominal wall hernias is safe and efficient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all robotically operated patients on ventral hernia using extraperitoneal eTEP technique from September 2019 to May 2022 was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 61 ventral hernias were operated on using the robotic eTEP technique during the study period. In 14 patients retro-rectal dissection was extended laterally by an extraperitoneal transversus abdominis release (eTAR) because of the hernia size or a lateral hernia localization. In all cases, an uncoated synthetic mesh was placed in the retromuscular position with complete closure of the hernia defects. The median hernia defect area was 30 cm² (4-308 cm²). The median mesh size was 540 cm² (300-1350 cm²). The median mesh defect ratio (MDR) was 17.78 (3.06-145). One intraoperative and three postoperative complications were encountered. Neither conversion nor reoperation were required.

CONCLUSION

The robotic extraperitoneal eTEP technique enables the required retromuscular mesh placement in a minimally invasive approach. With the possibility of a combination with a transversus abdominis release, even complex findings can be treated using this technique.

The first case of robotic-assisted transabdominal retrorectus repair for incisional hernia in Japan

Extraperitoneal mesh repair for ventral hernia has garnered attention and its rate has been increasing due to concerns for the potential complications of intraperitoneal mesh repair. Recently, robotic-assisted ventral hernia repair is highlighted as a solution to the technically demanding nature of laparoscopic transabdominal or enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal retrorectus ventral hernia repair. A 78-year-old man, who had undergone robot-assisted radical prostatectomy 10 months earlier, presented with an incisional hernia of European Hernia Society Classification M3W2, length 4 cm, width 5 cm with rectus diastasis. A right single-docking robotic-assisted transabdominal retrorectus repair was performed using a 21 by 14 cm self-gripping mesh and anterior wall reconstruction was done by 0 barbed nonabsorbable running suture. There were no complications and recurrence observed during a 7 months postoperative period. Single-docking robotic-assisted transabdominal retrorectus repair was considered a good option for midline moderate-size incisional hernias from the point of view of the ease of suturing, adequateness of dissection and prevention of bowel injury.