Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic transabdominal peritoneal repair for unilateral inguinal hernia: a propensity-score matched analysis

Single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The evolution of minimally invasive surgery has transformed inguinal hernia repair (IHR). The innovative single-port technique reduces the number of surgical incisions. However, the benefits of single-port IHR remain controversial. Our systematic review and network meta-analysis assess the efficacy and clinical outcomes of single-port laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (SPL-IHR), multi-port laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (MPL-IHR), single-port robotic inguinal hernia repair (SPR-IHR), and multi-port robotic inguinal hernia repair (MPR-IHR).

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Ovid for articles published before January 2024, focusing on complication rates, recurrence, seroma, hematoma, operative time, post-operative pain, and cosmetic outcomes of laparoscopic or robotic IHR. Both extraperitoneal (TEP) and transabdominal (TAPP) approaches were analyzed using MetaInsight. MPL-TAPP was used as the standard for comparison.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies, including 5,038 patients, 36.92% (1,860 patients) underwent MPL-TEP, 23.64% (1,191 patients) SPL-TEP, 22.23% (1,120 patients) MPR-TAPP, 10.08% (508 patients) MPL-TAPP, 5.40% (272 patients) SPL-TAPP, and 1.73% (87 patients) SPR-TAPP. There were no significant differences in the rates of post-operative complications, hernia recurrence, hematoma, or seroma among the techniques when compared to MPL-TAPP. For secondary outcomes, MPR-TAPP significantly increased the operative time for unilateral hernia repair by a mean difference (MD) of 10.60 min [95% CI: 2.16-19.04]. Conversely, for bilateral hernia repair, there was no significant difference. Post-operative pain was significantly higher for MPL-TEP and SPL-TEP, with MDs of 1.44 [95% CI: 0.43 to 2.44] and 1.22 [95% CI: 0.18 to 2.26], respectively. SPL-TEP was significantly favored in cosmetic outcomes over MPL-TEP, with an MD of 0.65 [95% CI: 0.07 to 1.24].

CONCLUSION

In our network meta-analysis, the risk of post-operative complications, including recurrence, hematoma, and seroma, does not significantly vary among single-port and multi-port laparoscopic or robotic techniques. This suggests that surgical technique selection can rely on surgeon expertise and resource availability, without compromising outcomes.

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.

Comparative Analysis of NSQIP National Outcomes and Projected Outcomes versus Our Institutional Outcomes for Robotic Gastrectomy: The Future of Gastric Resection

BACKGROUND

The robotic approach has vast applications in surgery; however, the utility of robotic gastrectomy has yet to be clearly defined. This study aimed to compare outcomes following robotic gastrectomy at our institution to the national patient-specific predicted outcomes data provided by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP).

METHODS

We prospectively studied 73 patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy under our care. ACS NSQIP outcomes after gastrectomy and predicted outcomes for our patients were compared with our actual outcomes utilizing students t test and chi-square analysis, where applicable. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Patients were 65 (66 ± 10.7) years old with a BMI of 26 (28 ± 6.5) kg/m2. 35 patients had gastric adenocarcinomas and 22 had gastrointestinal stromal tumors Operative duration was 245 (250 ± 114.7) minutes, estimated blood loss was 50 (83 ± 91.6) mL, and there were no conversions to 'open'. 1% of patients experienced superficial surgical site infections compared to the NSQIP predicted rate of 10% (P < .05). Length of stay (LOS) was 5 (6 ± 4.2) days vs NSQIP's predicted LOS of 8 (8 ± 3.2) days (P < .05). Three patients died during their postoperative hospital course (4%), due to multi-system organ failure and cardiac arrest. 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year estimated survival for patients with gastric adenocarcinoma was 76%, 63%, and 63%, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Robotic gastrectomy yields salutary patient outcomes and optimal survival for varying gastric diseases, particularly gastric adenocarcinoma. Our patients experienced shorter hospital stays and reduced complications relative to patients in NSQIP and predicted outcome for our patients. Gastrectomy undertaken robotically is the future of gastric resection.