Robotic intraperitoneal onlay versus totally extraperitoneal (TEP) retromuscular mesh ventral hernia repair: A propensity score matching analysis of short-term outcomes

Systematic review and meta-analysis on robotic assisted ventral hernia repair: the ROVER review

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery for ventral hernia repair (VHR) is gaining attention for its potential advantages over laparoscopic and open techniques. This approach combines the advantages of minimally invasive surgery with the ability to perform technically challenging procedures, often required in open surgery but difficult with conventional laparoscopy. We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of robotic VHR compared to other surgical approaches, focusing on postoperative complications, operative time, and costs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis were conducted, including 67 studies from January 2010 to May 2023 on Robotic VHR compared with other techniques. Primary outcome was 30-days postoperative complications; SSI, SSO, seroma, mortality, recurrence, length of hospital stay, operative time and costs were analysed as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Robotic surgery was associated with longer operative times compared to both laparoscopic (MD 64.67 min; p < 0.001) and open repairs (MD 69.69 min; p < 0.001). However, it resulted, compared to open surgery, in fewer SSIs (OR 0.62; p 0.05), mortality (OR 0.44; p 0.04) and shorter hospital stay (MD -3.77 days; p < 0.001). No differences were found in overall complications or length of stay between robotic and laparoscopic approaches but higher costs and longer operative times were reported in robotic VHR.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the currently available low-quality evidence, robotic VHR appears to offer limited advantages compared to laparoscopic techniques. However, when compared to open approaches, robotic VHR may demonstrate reduced postoperative complications and shorter hospital stays even if an higher rate of seroma formation was retrieved probably related to technical details. Nevertheless, longer operative times and higher costs remain significant limitations. Further high-quality comparative studies are warranted to assess long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Minimally invasive intraperitoneal onlay mesh plus (IPOM +) repair versus enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (e-TEP) repair for ventral hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Following concerns regarding an intraperitoneal mesh, newer ventral hernia repair (VHR) approaches focus on placing the mesh outside of the peritoneal cavity. The e-TEP technique used the retromuscular space and is suggested to be associated with decreased postoperative pain compared to IPOM +. This study aims to compare the IPOM + with the e-TEP for VHR.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

We searched for studies comparing endoscopic IPOM + and e-TEP in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from inception until September 2023. Outcomes were Visual Analog Scale (VAS) after 24 h of surgery and between 7 and 10 days after surgery, operative time, length of stay (LOS), seroma, recurrence, and readmission. RStudio was used for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics, with random effect for I2 > 25%.

RESULTS

From 149 records, 7 were included, from which 3 were RCTs, 3 were retrospective studies, and 1 was an observational prospective study. 521 patients were included (47% received e-TEP and 53% received IPOM +). 1 study included only robotic surgeries and 6 studies included only laparoscopy. Mean defect width was 3.62 cm ± 0.9 in the e-TEP group and 3.56 cm ± 0.9 in the IPOM + group. IPOM + had higher VAS after 1 day of surgery (MD - 3.35; 95% CI - 6.44; - 0.27; P = 0.033; I2 = 99%) and between 7 and 10 days after surgery (MD - 3.3; 95% CI - 5.33, - 1.28; P = 0.001; I2 = 99%). e-TEP repair showed with longer operative time (MD 52.89 min; 95% CI 29.74-76.05; P < 0.001; I2 = 92%). No differences were seen regarding LOS, seroma, recurrence, and readmission.

CONCLUSION

The e-TEP repair is associated with lower short-term postoperative pain after VHR compared to IPOM +, but with longer operative time. More RCTs are required to assess these results with long-term follow-up and determine its role in the armamentarium of the abdominal wall surgeon.

Comparing procedural costs and early clinical outcomes of robotic extended totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) with intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for midline ventral hernias

INTRODUCTION

The extended totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) repair has several theoretical advantages over the traditional intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for ventral hernias, including the use of less expensive non-barrier coated mesh and avoiding complications of intraperitoneal mesh. However, one area in need of further investigation is cost and clinical comparisons following robotic eTEP with IPOM.

METHODS

A retrospective matched cohort study was conducted of patients with midline ventral hernias undergoing robotic eTEP or IPOM at a single academic institution from November 2019-August 2023. Patients were matched based on demographics, hernia defect size, and whether they underwent concomitant procedures. Primary outcomes included supply costs. Secondary outcomes included operative time, length of stay, complications, recurrence, and inpatient opioid utilization.

RESULTS

In total, 88 matched patients were included: 44 IPOM and 44 eTEP. Mean age was 57 years, BMI 35 kg/m2, and 54.5% were male. Hernia size was similar for both groups: 25 [6-73] cm2 for the IPOMs vs 40 [14-68] cm2 for eTEPs (p = 0.21). There was no significant difference in total supply costs between IPOMs and eTEPs: $2338 [2021-3249] vs $2082 [1619-3394] (p = 0.5) respectively. Mean operative time was significantly lower for IPOMs 159.6 ± 57.8 min vs 198.0 ± 67.1 (p = 0.006), while the average length of stay was significantly longer for IPOMs: 1.7 ± 1.2 days vs 1.2 ± 1.3 days (p = 0.021). Total inpatient MME utilized was greater for IPOM: 61 [36-102] vs 29 [10-64] MME (p = 0.003). Postoperative complications and recurrence rate were similar.

CONCLUSION

There is no difference in total supply costs between patients undergoing robotic IPOM and eTEP repairs for midline ventral hernias. Though this study did find significant differences in total inpatient MME utilized and length of stay, it is debatable whether these are clinically significant. Further research is needed to determine appropriate indications for eTEP over IPOM.

Comparison of eTEP and IPOM for ventral hernia surgery in the early postoperative period: a retrospective cohort study of a tertiary university centre

PURPOSE

The extended totally extraperitoneal technique (eTEP) is a relatively new laparoscopic approach to address ventral hernias. Since this technique is not widely used yet, the literature regarding its efficacy and safety is limited, especially when compared to more established surgical techniques like intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM). This study aimed at contributing to the expanding body of evidence for eTEP, by comparing the early outcomes of eTEP and IPOM surgeries for ventral hernias.

METHODS

This monocentric, retrospective cohort study compared patients with ventral hernias that were treated with eTEP or IPOM from 2019 to 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients were analysed. 92 underwent eTEP and 31 IPOM respectively. Both groups were overall comparable. The IPOM group had a higher proportion of incisional hernias (61,29% vs. 21,74%, p < 0,001). This was taken into account for in a subgroup analysis of only primary hernias. The IPOM group had a significantly longer admission time (eTEP: 3 days, IPOM: 4 days, p < 0,001). The subgroup analysis revealed a statistically significant shorter surgery time in IPOM (median of 66,5 min vs. 106,5 min; p = 0,043) and a lower rate of postoperative complications in eTEP (eTEP: 4,17%, IPOM: 25%. p = 0,009). The eTEP group reported lower postoperative pain, yet without statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

eTEP for ventral hernia repair appears to be non-inferior to IPOM. Compared to IPOM it leads to shorter postoperative hospital stay and a potentially lower complication rate, despite a longer operation time.

Clinical outcomes and costs of retromuscular and intraperitoneal onlay mesh techniques in robotic incisional hernia repair

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare clinical outcomes and financial cost of intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus retromuscular (RM) repairs in robotic incisional hernia repairs (rIHR).

METHODS

Patients who underwent either IPOM or RM elective rIHR from 2012 to 2022 were included. Demographics, operative details, postoperative outcomes, and hospital costs were directly compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine IPOM and 55 RM were included. Age and body mass index (BMI) did not differ between both groups (IPOM vs RM: 59.3 ± 11.2 years vs. 57.5 ± 14 years, p = 0.423; BMI 34.1 ± 6.3 vs. BMI 33.2 ± 6.9, p = 0.435, respectively). Comorbidities and hernia characteristics were comparable. Extensive lysis of adhesions (> 30 min) was required more often in IPOM (18 vs. 6 in RM, p = 0.034). Defect closure was achieved in 100% of RM vs. 81.2% in IPOM (p < 0.001). Median (interquartile range) postoperative pain score was higher in RM than in IPOM [5(3-7) vs. 4(3-5), respectively, p = 0.006]. Median length of stay (0 day) and same-day discharge rate did not differ between groups (p = 0.598, p = 0.669, respectively). Six (8.7%) patients in the IPOM group versus one (1.8%) patient in the RM group were readmitted to hospital within 30 days postoperatively (p = 0.099). Perioperative complications were higher in IPOM (p = 0.011; 34.8% vs. 14.5% in RM) with higher Comprehensive Complication Index® morbidity scores [0(0-12.2) vs 0(0-0) in RM, p = 0.008)], Clavien-Dindo grade-II complications (8 vs 0 in RM, p = 0.009), and surgical site events (17 vs. 5 in RM, p = 0.024). Within a follow-up period of 57(± 28) months, recurrence rates were similar between both groups. Hospital costs did not differ between groups [IPOM: $9978 (7031-12,926) vs. RM: $8961(6701-11,222), p = 0.300]. Although postoperative complication costs were higher in IPOM ($2436 vs RM: $161, p = 0.020), total costs were comparable [IPOM: $12,415(8700-16,130) vs. RM: $9123(6789-11,457), p = 0.080].

CONCLUSION

Despite retromuscular repairs having lower postoperative complications than intraperitoneal onlay mesh repairs, both techniques offered encouraging results in robotic incisional hernia repair at a comparable total cost.

Laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) with fascial repair (IPOM-plus) for ventral and incisional hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Despite advancements in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) using the intraperitoneal onlay mesh technique (sIPOM), recurrence remains a common postoperative complication. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of defect closure (IPOM-plus) versus non-closure in ventral and incisional hernia repair. The aim is to determine which technique yields better outcomes in terms of reducing recurrence and complication rates.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from their inception until October 1, 2022, to identify all online English publications that compared the outcomes of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with and without fascia closure.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eleven cohort studies involving 1585 patients met the inclusion criteria. The IPOM-plus technique was found to reduce the recurrence of hernias (OR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.35, 0.76], p < 0.01), seroma (OR = 0.48, 95% CI [0.32, 0.71], p < 0.01), and mesh bulging (OR = 0.08, 95% CI [0.01, 0.42], p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed that body mass index (BMI) (OR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.29, 0.65], p < 0.0001), type of article (OR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.35, 0.76], p = 0.0008 < 0.01), geographical location (OR = 0.54, 95% CI [0.36, 0.82], p = 0.004 < 0.01), follow-up time (OR = 0.50, 95% CI [0.34, 0.73], p = 0.0004 < 0.01) had a significant influence on the postoperative recurrence of the IPOM-plus technique.

CONCLUSION

The IPOM-plus technique has been shown to greatly reduce the occurrence of recurrence, seroma, and mesh bulging. Overall, the IPOM-plus technique is considered a safe and effective procedure. However, additional randomized controlled studies with extended follow-up periods are necessary to further evaluate the IPOM-plus technique.

Minimally Invasive Extended Totally Extraperitoneal Versus Transabdominal Retromuscular Ventral Hernia Mesh Repair: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Minimally invasive surgery for ventral hernia repair (MIS-VHR) with mesh in retromuscular plane can be performed by either transabdominally (TA-RM) or via enhanced view totally extraperitoneal approach (eTEP). Although both techniques offer the mesh extension in the best anatomical space, closure of hernia defect, avoidance of traumatic fixation, the superiority of one approach over another is not established. This systematic review and meta-analysis were set up to analyze safety and efficacy of eTEP in comparison with TA-RM. Materials and Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) framework was used as guideline to conduct systematic search of literature. Studies that provided comparative data of MIS-VHR using eTEP versus TA-RM were identified. Primary outcomes were major complications. These were defined as grade III-IV according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Secondary outcomes included: surgical site infection (SSI) rates, seroma rates, surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI), minor complications (Clavien-Dindo grade I-II), intraoperative complications, recurrence rate, postoperative ileus, duration of surgery, postoperative pain. Random- and fixed-effects models of statistical analysis were used. Risk difference (RD) was computated for binary outcomes (major and minor complications, SSI, seroma, SSOPI, recurrence, ileus) with 95% confidence intervals. I2 test was used to assess statistical heterogeneity. Risk of bias assessment was performed using Newcastle-Ottawa framework. Results: There were 3 observational studies that enrolled 370 participants. In the eTEP group there were 166 patients and, in the TA-RM group there were 204 patients. There was no significant RD with regard to major complications (RD -0.02 [-0.06 to 0.02], test for overall effect: Z = 0.86 [P = .39]). There was no significant RD in occurrence of minor complications, SSI, seroma, SSOPI, recurrence, ileus. Conclusions: Both eTEP and TA-RM were found to have equal safety profile. Further high-quality studies evaluating patient reported outcomes and late recurrence may be useful. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023429160.

Robotic-assisted repair of incisional hernia-early experiences of a university robotic hernia program and comparison with open and minimally invasive sublay technique (eMILOS)

PURPOSE

With robotic surgical devices, an innovative tool has stepped into the arena of minimally invasive hernia surgery. It combines the advantages of open (low recurrence rates and ability to perform complex procedure such as transverse abdominis release) and laparoscopic surgery (low rate of wound and mesh infections, less pain). However, a superiority to standard minimally invasive procedures has not yet been proven. We present our first experiences of robotic mesh repair of incisional hernias and a comparison of our results with open and minimally invasive sublay techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent robotic-assisted mesh repair (RAHR) for incisional hernia between April and November 2022 (RAHR group) and patients who underwent open sublay (Sublay group) or eMILOS hernia repair (eMILOS group) between January 2018 and November 2022 was carried out. Patients in the RAHR group were matched 1:2 to patients in the Sublay group by propensity score matching. Patient demographics, preoperative hernia characteristics and cause of hernia, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis of only midline hernia was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients received robotic-assisted incisional hernia repair. Procedures performed included robotic retro-muscular hernia repair (r-RMHR, 76%), with transverse abdominis release in 56% of the cases. In one patient, r-RHMR was combined with robotic inguinal hernia repair. Two patients (10%) were operated with total extraperitoneal technique (eTEP). Robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair (r-TAPP) was performed in three patients (14%). Median (range) operating time in the RAHR group was significantly longer than in the sublay and eMILOS group (291 (122-311) vs. 109.5 (48-270) min vs. 123 (100-192) min, respectively, p < 0.001). The meshes applied in the RAHR group were significantly compared to the sublay (mean (SD) 529 ± 311 cm2 vs. 356 ± 231, p = 0.037), but without a difference compared to the eMILOS group (mean (SD) 596 ± 266 cm2). Median (range) length of hospital stay in the RAHR group was significantly shorter compared to the Sublay group (3 (2-7) vs. 5 (1-9) days, p = 0.032), but not significantly different to the eMILOS group. In short term follow-up, no hernia recurrence was observed in the RAHR and eMILOS group, with 9% in the Sublay group. The subgroup analysis of midline hernia revealed very similar results.

CONCLUSION

Our data show a promising outcome after robotic-assisted incisional hernia repair, but no superiority compared to the eMILOS technique. However, RAHR is a promising technique especially for complex hernia in patients with relevant risk factors, especially immunosuppression. Longer follow-up times are needed to accurately assess recurrence rates, and large prospective trials are needed to show superiority of robotic compared to standard open and minimally invasive hernia repair.

Preliminary robotic abdominal wall reconstruction experience: single-centre outcomes of the first 150 cases

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery offers new possibilities in repairing complex hernias with a minimally invasive approach. This study aimed to analyze our preliminary results.

METHODS

Between November 2015 and February 2020, 150 patients underwent robotic reconstruction for abdominal wall defects (77 primary and 73 incisional). A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was conducted to evaluate the short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 176.9 ± 72.1 min. No conversion to open or laparoscopic approach occurred. The mean hospital length of stay was 2.6 ± 1.6. According to Clavien-Dindo classification, two (grade III) complications following retromuscular mesh placement (1.3%) occurred. One patient (0.7%) required surgical revision due to small bowel occlusion following an intraparietal hernia. The 30-day readmission rate was 0.6%, and the mortality was nihil.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery is valuable for safely completing challenging surgical procedures like complex abdominal wall reconstruction, with low conversion and complication rates. A stepwise approach to the different surgical techniques is essential to optimize the outcomes and maximize the benefits of the robotic approach.

The Comparison of eTEP and IPOM in Ventral and Incisional Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Open sublay technique and laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) technique are the most common used procedures in ventral and incisional hernia repair, however, each technique has its own disadvantages. The enhanced view total extraperitoneal technique (eTEP) aims to put the mesh in the retromuscular space by minimal invasive technique. This study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of eTEP and IPOM approach in ventral and incisional hernia repair.

METHODS

The major databases (PubMed, Embase, Springer, and Cochrane Library) were searched, and all studies published through May 1, 2021, using the keywords "enhanced view extraperitoneal," "extended view totally extraperitoneal," "eTEP," "TEP," "laparoscopic retromuscular," "ventral hernia," "incisional hernia," "laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh," "IPOM." All relevant articles and reference lists in these original studies were also obtained from the above databases.

RESULTS

Five trials containing 433 patients were included in the present study. Compared with the IPOM technique, the eTEP ventral/incisional hernia repair was associated a longer operative time [mean difference=44.79; 95% confidence interval (CI): 26.57, 63; P=0.00001], less acute pain on postoperative day 1 (standardized mean difference=-3.90; 95% CI: -4.42, -3.38; P<0.00001), and day 7 (standardized mean difference=-3.72; 95% CI: -6.09, 1.35; P=0.002), and the eTEP group had a shorter hospital stay compared with the IPOM group (mean difference=-0.56; 95% CI: -0.74, -0.39; P=0.00001). There was no significant difference concerning the incidence of seroma, hematoma, intraoperative complication, and postoperative ileus between eTEP and IPOM groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The eTEP technique in ventral and incisional hernia repair shows significantly lower acute postoperative pain and shorter hospital study but a longer operative time. In addition, there is no significant difference in terms of intraoperative or postoperative complications. Further randomized controlled studies with long-term follow-up are needed to evaluate the eTEP technique.

Intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The ideal location for mesh placement in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (VHR) is still up for debate. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) to evaluate the outcomes of patients who received intraperitoneal mesh versus those that received extraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive VHR.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus from inception to May 3, 2021. We selected studies comparing intraperitoneal mesh versus extraperitoneal mesh placement in minimally invasive VHR. A meta-analysis was done for the outcomes of surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, hematoma, readmission, and recurrence. A subgroup analysis was conducted for a subset of studies comparing patients who have undergone intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus extended totally extraperitoneal approach (e-TEP).

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies (2320 patients) were identified. We found no statistically significant difference between patients who received intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh for outcomes of SSI, seroma, hematoma, readmission, and recurrence [(RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.60-4.27), (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.68-2.81), (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.45-3.72), (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.69-2.86), and (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.22-6.63), respectively]. The subgroup analysis had findings similar to the overall analysis.

CONCLUSION

Based on short-term results, extraperitoneal mesh does not appear to be superior to intraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair. The choice of mesh location should be based on the current evidence, surgeon, and center experience as well as individualized to each patient.

Robotic abdominal wall repair: adoption and early outcomes in a large academic medical center

Robotic-assisted abdominal wall repair (RAWR) has seen an exponential adoption over the last 5 years. Skepticism surrounding the safety, efficacy, and cost continues to limit a more widespread adoption of the platform. We describe our initial experience of 312 patients undergoing RAWR at a large academic center. A retrospective review of all patients undergoing any RAWR from July 1, 2016 to March 18, 2020 was completed. Patient specific, operation specific, and 30-day outcomes specific data were collected. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were used to assess factors associated with 30-day complications. There was a steady adoption of RAWR over the study period. A total of 312 patient were included, 138 (44%) were abdominal wall repairs and 174 (56%) were inguinal repairs. The mean age of the cohort was 54.2 years (SD 16), 69% were males, and the mean BMI was 29 kg/m² (SD 4.8). There were two reported intraoperative events and nine operative conversions. 60 patients had at least one complication at 30-days. These include: 52 seromas, 4 hematomas, 2 surgical-site infections, 1 deep venous thrombus, and 1 recurrence at 30-days. BMI, type of hernia, and sex were not associated with complications at 30-days. The use of absorbable mesh, longer hospital stay, operative conversion, previous repair, and expert hernia surgeon were significant predictors of 30-day complications. Age, operative conversion, and previous repair were the only predictors of 30-day complications on multivariate regression. Our initial experience of 312 patients demonstrates the adoption and comparable short-term outcomes for a wide variety of robotic-assisted hernia repairs.

Comparison of Midterm Outcomes Between Open and Robotic Emergent Ventral Hernia Repair

Background. There are no studies on the role of robotics in emergency ventral hernia repair (EVHR). We aimed to compare outcomes of robotic EVHR (REVHR) and open (OEVHR). Methods. We performed a retrospective study of EVHRs performed between 2013 and 2019. Patients who underwent ventral hernia repair in an elective setting and patients who had concomitant non-abdominal wall procedures were excluded. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative variables were compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results. In all, 43 patients underwent OEVHR as compared to 35 patients who underwent REVHR. The patients in both groups were similar in terms of hernia etiology as well as Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II) and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores. Mean operative times for the robotic group were almost 2-fold compared with those of the open group (139 minutes vs 70 minutes, respectively; P < .001). Median length of stay (LOS) did not differ between the groups (3 days for both groups; P = .488). Major complications (P = .001), morbidity scores (P = .006), surgical site events (SSEs) (P = .045), and procedural interventions (P = .020) were found higher in the open group. No differences in freedom of recurrence were found (P = .662). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that open repair was associated with a 4-fold risk for the development of complications as compared to robotic repair (P = .025; odds ratio (OR) = 4, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.193-13.444). Conclusion. Compared to OEVHR, REVHR resulted in longer operative times and lower morbidity, including SSEs and related interventions. However, neither LOS nor recurrence differed between the groups.

A comparison of robotic mesh repair techniques for primary uncomplicated midline ventral hernias and analysis of risk factors associated with postoperative complications

PURPOSE

We aim to compare short-term outcomes of robotic intraperitoneal onlay (rIPOM), transabdominal preperitoneal (rTAPP) and retromuscular (rRM) repair for uncomplicated midline primary ventral hernias (PVH) and determine risk factors associated with postoperative complications.

METHODS

The three groups were compared in terms of pre-, intra-, and post-operative variables. Postoperative complications were assessed using previously validated classifications. Univariate analyses were conducted to determine which variables influence postoperative complications (up to 90 days), followed by a multivariate regression analysis revealing statistically important risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 269 patients who underwent robotic PVH repair patients were grouped as rIPOM (n = 90), rTAPP (n = 108), and rRM (n = 71). rRM repair allowed for the use of larger-sized meshes for larger defects; however, it was associated with higher-grade complications. rTAPP repair resulted in the lowest morbidity and offered the highest mesh-to-defect ratio for smaller-sized hernias. Operative time for the rRM group was longer. The rIPOM group had a higher morbidity, likely due to higher frequency of minor complications, as compared to rTAPP and rRM groups. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that coronary artery disease, absence of defect closure, intraperitoneally placed mesh, and skin-to-skin time (minutes) were significantly associated with postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Robotic PVHR contributes multiple techniques to a surgeon's armamentarium, such as IPOM, TAPP, and RM mesh placements. Patient characteristics as well as the potential consequences of each technique need to be taken into consideration when deciding the appropriate approach for the repair of primary uncomplicated midline ventral hernias.