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

Establishment of a 24/7 robotic acute care surgery program at a large academic medical center

BACKGROUND

For many years, robotic surgery has been an option for various elective surgical procedures. Though robotic surgery has not traditionally been the first choice for acute surgical patients, recent work has shown promise in broader applications. However, there are limited data regarding how to establish an institutional robotics program for higher acuity patients. This project aimed to map a pathway for the creation of an acute care surgery robotic program at a large academic medical center.

METHODS

Various stakeholders were gathered jointly with our surgical faculty: anesthesia, operating room leadership, surgical technologists, circulating nurses, Central Sterile Supply, and Intuitive Surgical Inc. representatives. Staff underwent robotics training, and surgical technologists were trained as bedside first assistants. Nontraditional robotic operating rooms were allocated for coordinated placement of appropriate cases, and pre-made case carts were arranged with staff to be available at all hours. A workflow was created between surgical faculty and staff to streamline add-on robotic cases to the daily schedule.

RESULTS

Six faculty and two fellows are now credentialed in robotics surgery, and additional surgeons are undergoing training. Numerous staff have completed training to perform operative assistant duties. The operating capacity of robotic acute care surgeries has more than doubled in just one year, from 77 to 172 cases between 2022 and 2023, respectively. Two add-on cases can be accommodated per day. Select patients are being offered robotic surgeries in the acute surgical setting, and ongoing efforts are being made to create guidelines for which patients would best benefit from robotic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Launching a successful robotic surgery program requires a coordinated, multidisciplinary effort to ensure seamless integration into daily operations. Additional assistance from outside technology representatives can help to ensure comfort with procedures. Further studies are needed to determine the acute patient population that may benefit most from robotic surgery.

The role of RObotic surgery in EMergency setting (ROEM): protocol for a multicentre, observational, prospective international study on the use of robotic platform in emergency surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has gained widespread acceptance in elective interventions, yet its role in emergency procedures remains underexplored. While the 2021 WSES position paper discussed limited studies on the application of robotics in emergency general surgery, it recommended strict patient selection, adequate training, and improved platform accessibility. This prospective study aims to define the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings, evaluating intraoperative and postoperative outcomes and assessing its feasibility and safety.

METHODS

The ROEM study is an observational, prospective, multicentre, international analysis of clinically stable adult patients undergoing robotic surgery for emergency treatment of acute pathologies including diverticulitis, cholecystitis, and obstructed hernias. Data collection includes patient demographics and intervention details. Furthermore, data relating to the operating theatre team and the surgical instruments used will be collected in order to conduct a cost analysis. The study plans to enrol at least 500 patients from 50 participating centres, with each centre having a local lead and collaborators. All data will be collected and stored online through a secure server running the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) web application. Ethical considerations and data governance will be paramount, requiring local ethical committee approvals from participating centres.

DISCUSSION

Current literature and expert consensus suggest the feasibility of robotic surgery in emergencies with proper support. However, challenges include staff training, scheduling conflicts with elective surgeries, and increased costs. The ROEM study seeks to contribute valuable data on the safety, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery in emergency settings, focusing on specific pathologies. Previous studies on cholecystitis, abdominal hernias, and diverticulitis provide insights into the benefits and challenges of robotic approaches. It is necessary to identify patient populations that benefit most from robotic emergency surgery to optimize outcomes and justify costs.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic incisional hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety outcomes of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic techniques for incisional hernia repair.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane databases, and conference abstracts were systematically searched for studies that directly compared robot-assisted versus laparoscopy for incisional hernia repair and reported safety or efficacy outcomes in a follow-up of ≥ 1 month. The primary endpoints of interest were postoperative complications and the length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 2104 results, of which four studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies included 1293 patients with incisional hernia repairs, 440 (34%) of whom underwent robot-assisted repair. Study follow-up ranged from 1 to 24 months. There was no significant difference between groups in the incidence of postoperative complications (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.35-1.21; p = 0.17). The recurrence rate of incisional hernias (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.05-2.29; p = 0.27) was also similar between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries. Hospital length of stay (MD - 1.05 days; 95% CI - 2.06, - 0.04; p = 0.04) was significantly reduced in the robotic-assisted repair. However, the robot-assisted repair had a significantly longer operative time (MD 69.6 min; 95% CI 59.0-80.1; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The robotic approach for incisional hernia repair was associated with a significant difference between the two groups in complications and recurrence rates, a longer operative time than laparoscopic repair, but with a shorter length of stay.

Robotic repair of moderate-sized midline ventral hernias reduced complications, readmissions, and length of hospitalization compared to open techniques

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.

Systematic review of robotic ventral hernia repair with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite being one of the most common operations performed by general surgeons, there is a lack of consensus regarding the recommended approach for ventral hernia repair (VHR). Recent times have seen the rapid development of new techniques, such as robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the currently available evidence relating to RVHR, in comparison to open VHR (OVHR) and laparoscopic VHR (LVHR).

METHODS

A systematic search of the following databases was conducted: PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science. A meta-analysis was performed for the outcomes of length of stay (LOS), recurrence, operative time, intraoperative complications, wound complications, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, mortality and costs.

RESULTS

A total of 39 studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, RVHR reduced LOS, intra-operative complications, wound complications and readmission compared to OVHR. Compared to LVHR, RVHR was associated with increased operative time and costs, with comparable clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is currently a lack of robust evidence to support the robotic approach in VHR. It does not demonstrate major benefits in comparison to LVHR, which is more affordable and accessible. Strong quality, long-term data is required to help with establishing a gold standard approach in VHR.

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.

Robotic operations in urgent general surgery: a systematic review

Robotically assisted operations are the state of the art in laparoscopic general surgery. They are established predominantly for elective operations. Since laparoscopy is widely used in urgent general surgery, the significance of robotic assistance in urgent operations is of interest. Currently, there are few data on robotic-assisted operations in urgent surgery. The aim of this study was to collect and classify the existing studies. A two-stage, PRISMA-compliant literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library was conducted. We analyzed all articles on robotic surgery associated with urgent general surgery resp. acute surgical diseases of the abdomen. Gynecological and urological diseases so as vascular surgery, except mesenterial ischemia, were excluded. Studies and case reports/series published between 1980 and 2021 were eligible for inclusion. In addition to a descriptive synopsis, various outcome parameters were systematically recorded. Fifty-two studies of operations for acute appendicitis and cholecystitis, hernias and acute conditions of the gastrointestinal tract were included. The level of evidence is low. Surgical robots in the narrow sense and robotic camera mounts were used. All narrow-sense robots are nonautonomous systems; in 82%, the Da Vinci^® system was used. The most frequently published emergency operations were urgent cholecystectomies (30 studies, 703 patients) followed by incarcerated hernias (9 studies, 199 patients). Feasibility of robotic operations was demonstrated for all indications. Neither robotic-specific problems nor extensive complication rates were reported. Various urgent operations in general surgery can be performed robotically without increased risk. The available data do not allow a final evidence-based assessment.

[Current robotic ventral hernia surgery exemplified by 50 consecutive patients]

BACKGROUND

In recent years there has been a rise in robotic techniques and approaches regarding hernia repair with extraperitoneal mesh placement.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the first 50 patients who underwent robotic ventral hernia repair between May 2019 and November 2020 at the department of general surgery of the Kempten Clinic was performed.

RESULTS

This case series consisted of 36 incisional hernias, 12 primary hernias (8 umbilical and 3 epigastric hernias in combination with a diastasis recti abdominis as well as 1 Spigelian hernia) and 2 parastomal hernias. A complete closure of the hernia was achieved in all cases. Extraperitoneal mesh placement in the retromuscular or preperitoneal space was achieved in 98 % of the ventral procedures. We used an extraperitoneal approach with retromuscular mesh implantation (r-eTEP= robotic enhanced view total extraperitoneal plasty) in 22 cases, 3 of those along with a transversus abdominis release (r-eTAR= robotic extraperitoneal transversus abdominis release) and 26 operations were carried out transperitoneally. These included 11 preperitoneal (r-vTAPP= robotic ventral TAPP), 7 retrorectus (TARUP= robotic transabdominal retromuscular umbilical prosthetic hernia repair) and 1 intraperitoneal onlay mesh placements (r-IPOM= robotic intraperitoneal onlay mesh) as well as 7 transperitoneal transversus abdominis releases with retromuscular mesh placement. The 2 parastomal hernias were treated with an intraperitoneal 3D funnel mesh. After the initial treatment of smaller hernias the indications could be rapidly extended to complex hernias in 38 % of this case series. One conversion to an open operation was necessary due to technical problems in closing the posterior rectus sheath. The complication rate was 12 % and the reintervention rate 4 %.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery of ventral hernia is safe and effective. Even complex hernias can be treated minimally invasively with closure of the hernia defect and extraperitoneal mesh placement.