1
|
Awad L, Reed B, Bollen E, Langridge BJ, Jasionowska S, Butler PEM, Ponniah A. The emerging role of robotics in plastic and reconstructive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg 2024; 18:254. [PMID: 38878229 PMCID: PMC11180031 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-01987-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2024] [Accepted: 05/19/2024] [Indexed: 06/19/2024]
Abstract
The role of robotics has grown exponentially. There is an active interest amongst practitioners in the transferability of the potential benefits into plastic and reconstructive surgery; however, many plastic surgeons report lack of widespread implementation, training, or clinical exposure. We report the current evidence base, and surgical opportunities, alongside key barriers, and limitations to overcome, to develop the use of robotics within the field. This systematic review of PubMed, Medline, and Embase has been conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024524237). Preclinical, educational, and clinical articles were included, within the scope of plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2, 181, articles were screened; 176 articles met the inclusion criteria across lymph node dissection, flap and microsurgery, vaginoplasty, craniofacial reconstruction, abdominal wall reconstruction and transoral robotic surgery (TOR). A number of benefits have been reported including technical advantages such as better visualisation, improved precision and accuracy, and tremor reduction. Patient benefits include lower rate of complications and quicker recovery; however, there is a longer operative duration in some categories. Cost presents a significant barrier to implementation. Robotic surgery presents an exciting opportunity to improve patient outcomes and surgical ease of use, with feasibility for many subspecialities demonstrated in this review. However, further higher quality comparative research with careful case selection, which is adequately powered, as well as the inclusion of cost-analysis, is necessary to fully understand the true benefit for patient care, and justification for resource utilisation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Awad
- Charles Wolfson Centre of Reconstructive Surgery, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
- Department of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
| | - Benedict Reed
- Charles Wolfson Centre of Reconstructive Surgery, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
| | - Edward Bollen
- Charles Wolfson Centre of Reconstructive Surgery, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
| | - Benjamin J Langridge
- Charles Wolfson Centre of Reconstructive Surgery, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
- Department of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
| | - Sara Jasionowska
- Charles Wolfson Centre of Reconstructive Surgery, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
| | - Peter E M Butler
- Charles Wolfson Centre of Reconstructive Surgery, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
- Department of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
| | - Allan Ponniah
- Charles Wolfson Centre of Reconstructive Surgery, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gillion JF, Fromont G, Verhaeghe R, Tiry P, Binot D, Dugué T, Dabrowski A. Open IPOMs for medium/large incisional ventral hernia repairs in the French Hernia Registry: factors associated with their use and mesh-related outcomes. Hernia 2024; 28:745-759. [PMID: 37581722 DOI: 10.1007/s10029-023-02853-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2023] [Accepted: 07/19/2023] [Indexed: 08/16/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The use of open intra-peritoneal onlay mesh repairs (O-IPOMs) for treating medium/large incisional ventral hernias has come into question due to the development of minimally invasive and sublay procedures. This study aimed to identify factors that are associated with the use of O-IPOMs in France. METHODS We analysed prospectively collected data from the French Hernia Registry on incisional ventral hernia repairs (IVHR) for hernias ≥ 4 cm in width. RESULTS We obtained data for 2261 IVHR (from 11/09/2011 to 30/03/2020): 733 O-IPOMs and 1,528 other techniques. We found that the O-IPOMs were performed on patients with more patient-related risk factors compared with the other techniques. Specifically, there was a higher proportion of patients with ASA III/IV (40.47% vs. 28.02%; p < 0.00001) and at least one patient-related risk factor (66.17% vs. 58.51%; p = 0.0005). Of the 733 O-IPOMs, 195 used Ventrio ST™ (VST), the most commonly used mesh for such IPOMs in our database; the other 538 O-IPOMs used other meshes (OM). The VST subgroup had a higher proportion of patients with ASA III/IV (52.58% vs. 36.07%; p < 0.0001) and on anticoagulants (26.04% vs. 18.41%; p = 0.0229) compared with the OM subgroup; they also had a lower recurrence rate after 2 years (5.83% vs. 15.41%; p = 0.008). However, large (≥ 10 cm) or lateral defects were more common in the OM subgroup, and their mesh/defect area ratio was lower. CONCLUSION O-IPOMs were performed on patients with more comorbidities and/or complex incisional hernias compared with other techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J-F Gillion
- Ramsay Sante, Antony Private Hospital, 1 rue Velpeau, 92160, Antony, France.
| | - G Fromont
- Bois Bernard Private Hospital, 62320, Rouvroy, France
| | - R Verhaeghe
- MCO Côte d'Opale, 62280, Saint-Martin-Boulogne, France
| | - P Tiry
- Saint-Omer Clinic, 62500, Saint-Omer, France
| | - D Binot
- MCO Côte d'Opale, 62280, Saint-Martin-Boulogne, France
| | - T Dugué
- Saint-Pierre Clinic, 66000, Perpignan, France
| | - A Dabrowski
- Saint-Omer Clinic, 62500, Saint-Omer, France
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Carter J, Ahamed F, Juprasert J, Anderson M, Lin M, Lebares C, Soriano I. Robotic repair of moderate-sized midline ventral hernias reduced complications, readmissions, and length of hospitalization compared to open techniques. J Robot Surg 2024; 18:142. [PMID: 38554231 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-01909-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2024] [Accepted: 03/09/2024] [Indexed: 04/01/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare outcomes of robotic and open repair for uncomplicated, moderate-sized, midline ventral hernias. METHODS From 2017 to 2021, patient characteristics and 30 day outcomes for all ventral hernias at our center were prospectively collected. We studied hernias potentially suitable for robotic repair: elective, midline, 3-10 cm rectus separation, no prior mesh, and no need for concomitant procedure. Robotic or open repair was performed by surgeon or patient preference. The primary outcome was any complication using Clavien-Dindo scoring. Secondary outcomes were operative time, length-of-stay, and readmissions. Regression identified predictors of complications. RESULTS Of 648 hernias repaired, 70 robotic and 52 open repairs met inclusion criteria. The groups had similar patient demographics, co-morbidities, and hernia size, except that there were more immunosuppressed patients in the open group (11 versus 5 patients, p = 0.031). Complications occurred after 7 (13%) open repairs versus 2 (3%) robotic repairs, p = 0.036. Surgical site infection occurred after four open repairs but no robotic repair, p = 0.004. Length-of-stay averaged almost 3 days longer after open repair (4.3 ± 2.7 days versus 1.5 ± 1.4 days, p = 0.031). Readmission occurred after 6 (12%) oppen repairs but only 1 (1%) robotic repair. A long-term survey (61% response rate after mean follow-up of 2.8 years) showed that the HerQLes QOL score was better after robotic repair (46 ± 15 versus 40 ± 17, = 0.049). In regression models, only open technique predicted complications. CONCLUSIONS Robotic techniques were associated with fewer complications, shorter hospitalization, fewer infections, and fewer readmissions compared to open techniques. Open surgical technique was the only predictor of complications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan Carter
- Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, 521 Parnassus Ave, HSW 1601, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
| | - Fayyaz Ahamed
- Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, 521 Parnassus Ave, HSW 1601, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA
| | - Jackly Juprasert
- Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, 521 Parnassus Ave, HSW 1601, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA
| | - Mark Anderson
- Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, 521 Parnassus Ave, HSW 1601, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA
| | - Matthew Lin
- Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, 521 Parnassus Ave, HSW 1601, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA
| | - Carter Lebares
- Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, 521 Parnassus Ave, HSW 1601, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA
| | - Ian Soriano
- Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, 521 Parnassus Ave, HSW 1601, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Grössmann-Waniek N, Riegelnegg M, Gassner L, Wild C. Robot-assisted surgery in thoracic and visceral indications: an updated systematic review. Surg Endosc 2024; 38:1139-1150. [PMID: 38307958 PMCID: PMC10881599 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10670-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2023] [Accepted: 12/29/2023] [Indexed: 02/04/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole Grössmann-Waniek
- Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment (AIHTA), Garnisongasse 7/20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
| | - Michaela Riegelnegg
- Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment (AIHTA), Garnisongasse 7/20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Lucia Gassner
- Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment (AIHTA), Garnisongasse 7/20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Claudia Wild
- Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment (AIHTA), Garnisongasse 7/20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Anoldo P, Manigrasso M, D’Amore A, Musella M, De Palma GD, Milone M. Abdominal Wall Hernias-State of the Art of Laparoscopic versus Robotic Surgery. J Pers Med 2024; 14:100. [PMID: 38248801 PMCID: PMC10817490 DOI: 10.3390/jpm14010100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2023] [Revised: 01/11/2024] [Accepted: 01/15/2024] [Indexed: 01/23/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pietro Anoldo
- Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, “Federico II” University of Naples, 80138 Naples, Italy;
| | - Michele Manigrasso
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, “Federico II” University of Naples, 80138 Naples, Italy; (M.M.); (A.D.); (G.D.D.P.); (M.M.)
| | - Anna D’Amore
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, “Federico II” University of Naples, 80138 Naples, Italy; (M.M.); (A.D.); (G.D.D.P.); (M.M.)
| | - Mario Musella
- Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, “Federico II” University of Naples, 80138 Naples, Italy;
| | - Giovanni Domenico De Palma
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, “Federico II” University of Naples, 80138 Naples, Italy; (M.M.); (A.D.); (G.D.D.P.); (M.M.)
| | - Marco Milone
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, “Federico II” University of Naples, 80138 Naples, Italy; (M.M.); (A.D.); (G.D.D.P.); (M.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
de'Angelis N, Schena CA, Moszkowicz D, Kuperas C, Fara R, Gaujoux S, Gillion JF, Gronnier C, Loriau J, Mathonnet M, Oberlin O, Perez M, Renard Y, Romain B, Passot G, Pessaux P. Robotic surgery for inguinal and ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2024; 38:24-46. [PMID: 37985490 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10545-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2023] [Accepted: 10/13/2023] [Indexed: 11/22/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola de'Angelis
- Unit of Colorectal and Digestive Surgery, DIGEST Department, Beaujon University Hospital, AP-HP, University of Paris Cité, 100 Boulevard du Général Leclerc, Clichy, 92110, Paris, France.
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Paris Cité, Paris, France.
| | - Carlo Alberto Schena
- Unit of Colorectal and Digestive Surgery, DIGEST Department, Beaujon University Hospital, AP-HP, University of Paris Cité, 100 Boulevard du Général Leclerc, Clichy, 92110, Paris, France.
| | - David Moszkowicz
- Service de Chirurgie Générale et Digestive, AP-HP, Hôpital Louis Mourier, DMU ESPRIT-GHU AP-HP, Nord-Université de Paris, Colombes, France
| | | | - Régis Fara
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Hôpital Européen, Marseille, France
| | - Sébastien Gaujoux
- Department of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplantation, AP-HP Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France
| | | | - Caroline Gronnier
- Eso-Gastric Surgery Unit, Department of Digestive Surgery, Magellan Center, Bordeaux University Hospital, Pessac, France
| | - Jérôme Loriau
- Department of Digestive Surgery, St-Joseph Hospital, Paris, France
| | - Muriel Mathonnet
- Department of General, Endocrine and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital of Limoges, Limoges, France
| | - Olivier Oberlin
- Service de Chirurgie, Groupe Hospitalier Privé Ambroise-Paré - Hartmann, Paris, France
| | - Manuela Perez
- Département de chirurgie viscérale, métabolique et cancérologie (CVMC), CHRU de Nancy-hôpitaux de Brabois, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France
| | - Yohann Renard
- Departement of General Surgery, Reims Champagne-Ardenne University, Reims, France
| | - Benoît Romain
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Strasbourg University, Strasbourg, France
| | - Guillaume Passot
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Hopital Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre Bénite, France
| | - Patrick Pessaux
- Visceral and Digestive Surgery, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Najm A, Niculescu AG, Gaspar BS, Grumezescu AM, Beuran M. A Review of Abdominal Meshes for Hernia Repair-Current Status and Emerging Solutions. MATERIALS (BASEL, SWITZERLAND) 2023; 16:7124. [PMID: 38005054 PMCID: PMC10672379 DOI: 10.3390/ma16227124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2023] [Revised: 11/07/2023] [Accepted: 11/08/2023] [Indexed: 11/26/2023]
Abstract
Abdominal hernias are common issues in the clinical setting, burdening millions of patients worldwide. Associated with pain, decreased quality of life, and severe potential complications, abdominal wall hernias should be treated as soon as possible. Whether an open repair or laparoscopic surgical approach is tackled, mesh reinforcement is generally required to ensure a durable hernia repair. Over the years, numerous mesh products have been made available on the market and in clinical settings, yet each of the currently used meshes presents certain limitations that reflect on treatment outcomes. Thus, mesh development is still ongoing, and emerging solutions have reached various testing stages. In this regard, this paper aims to establish an up-to-date framework on abdominal meshes, briefly overviewing currently available solutions for hernia repair and discussing in detail the most recent advances in the field. Particularly, there are presented the developments in lightweight materials, meshes with improved attachment, antimicrobial fabrics, composite and hybrid textiles, and performant mesh designs, followed by a systematic review of recently completed clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alfred Najm
- Department of Surgery, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 8 Eroii Sanitari, Sector 5, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (A.N.); (B.S.G.); (M.B.)
- Emergency Hospital Floreasca Bucharest, 8 Calea Floresca, Sector 1, 014461 Bucharest, Romania
| | - Adelina-Gabriela Niculescu
- Research Institute of the University of Bucharest—ICUB, University of Bucharest, 050657 Bucharest, Romania;
- Department of Science and Engineering of Oxide Materials and Nanomaterials, Politehnica University of Bucharest, 011061 Bucharest, Romania
| | - Bogdan Severus Gaspar
- Department of Surgery, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 8 Eroii Sanitari, Sector 5, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (A.N.); (B.S.G.); (M.B.)
- Emergency Hospital Floreasca Bucharest, 8 Calea Floresca, Sector 1, 014461 Bucharest, Romania
| | - Alexandru Mihai Grumezescu
- Research Institute of the University of Bucharest—ICUB, University of Bucharest, 050657 Bucharest, Romania;
- Department of Science and Engineering of Oxide Materials and Nanomaterials, Politehnica University of Bucharest, 011061 Bucharest, Romania
- Academy of Romanian Scientists, Ilfov No. 3, 050044 Bucharest, Romania
| | - Mircea Beuran
- Department of Surgery, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 8 Eroii Sanitari, Sector 5, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (A.N.); (B.S.G.); (M.B.)
- Emergency Hospital Floreasca Bucharest, 8 Calea Floresca, Sector 1, 014461 Bucharest, Romania
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Hernandez A, Petersen R. Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair. Surg Clin North Am 2023; 103:947-960. [PMID: 37709398 DOI: 10.1016/j.suc.2023.05.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/16/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandra Hernandez
- Department of Surgery, Division of General Surgery, University of Washington, 1959 Northeast Pacific Street, Box 356410, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Rebecca Petersen
- Department of Surgery, Division of General Surgery, University of Washington, 1959 Northeast Pacific Street, Box 356410, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Petro CC, Maskal SM, Renton DB, Yunis JP, Meara MP, Diaz K, Wilber M, McKenzie K, Tu C, Phillips SE, Miller BT, Beffa LR, Rosen MJ, Prabhu AS. Robotic Enhanced-View Totally Extraperitoneal vs Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh Evaluation: 1-Year Exploratory Outcomes of the REVEAL Randomized Clinical Trial. J Am Coll Surg 2023; 237:614-620. [PMID: 37310015 DOI: 10.1097/xcs.0000000000000784] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients with small- to medium-sized ventral hernias randomized to robotic enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) or robotic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (rIPOM) previously demonstrated comparable 30-day patient-reported outcomes. Here we report 1-year exploratory outcomes for this multi-center, patient-blinded randomized clinical trial. STUDY DESIGN Patients with midline ventral hernias 7 cm wide or less undergoing mesh repair were randomized to robotic eTEP or rIPOM. Planned exploratory outcomes at 1 year include pain intensity (using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS 3a]), Hernia-Related Quality of Life Survey (HerQLes) scores, pragmatic hernia recurrence, and reoperation. RESULTS One hundred randomized patients (51 eTEP, 49 rIPOM) reached a median 12-month follow-up (interquartile range 11 to 13) with 7% lost. After regression analysis adjusting for baseline scores, there was no difference in postoperative pain intensity at 1-year for eTEP compared with rIPOM (odds ratio [OR] 2.1 [95% CI 0.85 to 5.1]; p = 0.11). HerQLes scores were 15 points lower on average (ie less improved) at 1 year after eTEP repairs compared with rIPOM, a difference maintained after regression analysis (OR 0.31 [95% CI 0.15 to 0.67]; p = 0.003). Pragmatic hernia recurrence was 12.2% (6 of 49) for eTEP and 15.9% (7 of 44) for rIPOM (p = 0.834). In the first year, 2 eTEP and 1 rIPOM patients required reoperations related to their index repair (p = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS Exploratory analyses showed similar outcomes at 1 year in regard to pain, hernia recurrence, and reoperation. Abdominal wall quality of life at 1 year appears to favor rIPOM, and the possibility that an eTEP dissection is less advantageous in that regard should be the subject of future investigation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Clayton C Petro
- From the Department of Surgery, Center for Abdominal Core Health (Petro, Maskal, Miller, Beffa, Rosen, Prabhu), Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH
| | - Sara M Maskal
- From the Department of Surgery, Center for Abdominal Core Health (Petro, Maskal, Miller, Beffa, Rosen, Prabhu), Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH
| | - David B Renton
- Department of Surgery, Center for Abdominal Core Health, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH (Renton, Meara, Diaz)
| | - Jonathan P Yunis
- Center for Hernia Repair, Sarasota Memorial Hospital, Sarasota, FL (Yunis, Wilber, McKenzie)
| | - Michael P Meara
- Department of Surgery, Center for Abdominal Core Health, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH (Renton, Meara, Diaz)
| | - Kayla Diaz
- Department of Surgery, Center for Abdominal Core Health, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH (Renton, Meara, Diaz)
| | - Melanie Wilber
- Center for Hernia Repair, Sarasota Memorial Hospital, Sarasota, FL (Yunis, Wilber, McKenzie)
| | - Kristen McKenzie
- Center for Hernia Repair, Sarasota Memorial Hospital, Sarasota, FL (Yunis, Wilber, McKenzie)
| | - Chao Tu
- Department of Statistics (Tu), Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH
| | - Sharon E Phillips
- the Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN (Phillips)
| | - Benjamin T Miller
- From the Department of Surgery, Center for Abdominal Core Health (Petro, Maskal, Miller, Beffa, Rosen, Prabhu), Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH
| | - Lucas R Beffa
- From the Department of Surgery, Center for Abdominal Core Health (Petro, Maskal, Miller, Beffa, Rosen, Prabhu), Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH
| | - Michael J Rosen
- From the Department of Surgery, Center for Abdominal Core Health (Petro, Maskal, Miller, Beffa, Rosen, Prabhu), Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH
| | - Ajita S Prabhu
- From the Department of Surgery, Center for Abdominal Core Health (Petro, Maskal, Miller, Beffa, Rosen, Prabhu), Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Kawka M, Fong Y, Gall TMH. Laparoscopic versus robotic abdominal and pelvic surgery: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Surg Endosc 2023; 37:6672-6681. [PMID: 37442833 PMCID: PMC10462573 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10275-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2023] [Accepted: 07/02/2023] [Indexed: 07/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The current evidence is inconclusive on whether robotic or laparoscopic surgery is the optimal platform for minimally invasive surgery. Existing comparisons techniques focus on short-term outcomes only, while potentially being confounded by a lack of standardisation in robotic procedures. There is a pertinent need for an up-to-date comparison between minimally invasive surgical techniques. We aimed to systematically review randomised controlled trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic techniques in major surgery. METHODS Embase, Medline and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to 13th September 2022. Included studies were randomised controlled trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic techniques in abdominal and pelvic surgery. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Short-term, health-related quality of life, and long-term, outcomes were analysed. RESULTS Forty-five studies, across thirteen procedures, involving 7364 patients were included. All of the studies reported non-significant differences in mortality between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. In majority of studies, there was no significant difference in complication rate (n = 31/35, 85.6%), length of postoperative stay (n = 27/32, 84.4%), and conversion rate (n = 15/18, 83.3%). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with shorter operative time (n = 16/31, 51.6%) and lower total cost (n = 11/13, 84.6%). Twenty three studies reported on quality of life outcomes; majority (n = 14/23, 60.9%) found no significant differences. CONCLUSION There were no significant differences between robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery with regards to mortality and morbidity outcomes in the majority of studies. Robotic surgery was frequently associated with longer operative times and higher overall cost. Selected studies found potential benefits in post-operative recovery time, and patient-reported outcomes; however, these were not consistent across procedures and trials, with most studies being underpowered to detect differences in secondary outcomes. Future research should focus on assessing quality of life, and long-term outcomes to further elucidate where the robotic platform could lead to patient benefits, as the technology evolves.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michal Kawka
- Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Yuman Fong
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA
| | - Tamara M H Gall
- Department of HPB Surgery, The Mater Misericordiae Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
|