Robotic assisted treatment of flank hernias: case series

Open repair of flank and lumbar hernias: 142 consecutive repairs at a high-volume hernia center

BACKGROUND

Flank and lumbar hernias (FLH) are challenging to repair. This study aimed to establish a reproducible management strategy and analyze elective flank and lumbar repair (FLHR) outcomes from a single institution.

METHODS

A prospective analysis using a hernia-specific database was performed examining patients undergoing open FLHR between 2004 and 2021. Variables included patient demographics and operative characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 142 patients, 106 presented with flank hernias, and 36 with lumbar hernias. Patients, primarily ASA Class 2 or 3, exhibited a mean age of 57.0 ​± ​13.4 years and BMI of 30.2 ​± ​5.7 ​kg/m2. Repairs predominantly utilized synthetic mesh in the preperitoneal space (95.1 ​%). After 29.9 ​± ​13.1 months follow-up, wound infections occurred in 8.3 ​%; hernia recurrence was 3.5 ​%. At 6 months postoperatively, 21.2 ​% of patients reported chronic pain with two-thirds of these individuals having preoperative pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Open preperitoneal FLHR provides a durable repair with low complication and hernia recurrence rates over 2.5 years of follow-up.

Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Repair of Petit's Hernia With Preperitoneal Mesh

Lumbar hernias are rare abdominal wall hernias that occur in the posterolateral abdominal wall. Intra-peritoneal or extra-peritoneal contents typically protrude through defects in one of two anatomical triangles. The superior lumbar triangle (Grynfeltt-Lesshaft triangle) is an inverted triangle bordered by the 12th rib superiorly, the internal oblique muscle laterally, and the erector spinae muscle medially. The inferior lumbar triangle (Petit's triangle) is an upright triangle bordered by the iliac crest inferiorly, the external oblique muscle laterally, and the latissimus dorsi muscle medially. Surgical repair has been described via open or laparoscopic approach. A 69-year-old male patient presented with right flank pain and swelling. He was involved in a motorcycle accident 10 months prior, which likely resulted in the development of a traumatic lumbar hernia which was demonstrated on the CT scan. The hernia was clinically incarcerated, and the defect contained the cecum and ileocecal valve. The defect was noted just superior to the iliac crest, by definition, making this an inferior lumbar hernia or a Petit's hernia. The hernia was repaired via robotic-assisted laparoscopic transabdominal approach. A peritoneal flap was created exposing the fascial defect. The fascia was primarily repaired with suture. The defect was reinforced with an 11.4 cm round Ventralight ST mesh in the preperitoneal space. The patient tolerated the procedure well with no acute complications. He was discharged the same day as an outpatient with appropriate pain control. Short-term follow-up demonstrated no recurrent hernia present and symptoms resolved. Lumbar hernias are a rare occurrence with no gold standard technique for repair. The benefits of the laparoscopic approach have been described over the open approach. This case report describes utilizing a minimally invasive approach to primarily repair a lumbar hernia defect while also reinforcing the hernia with mesh in the preperitoneal space.

Robotic-assisted treatment of paraesophageal hernias in the emergency setting: a retrospective study

Emergency treatment of paraesophageal hernias can be carried out through laparotomy or minimally invasive approaches, however, evidence in this regard is weak. The aim of our study was to assess safety and feasibility of the robotic-assisted treatment of paraesophageal hernias in the emergency setting. At the Bellinzona e Valli Regional Hospital, Switzerland, we conducted a retrospective analysis of patients operated on from January 2020 to January 2024 with robotic surgery for emergency presentation of paraesophageal hernias. Demographic and clinical details, operative techniques, and postoperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Out of 82 patients who underwent robotic-assisted paraesophageal hernia repair, 17 were treated in the emergency setting. Median age was 79 years (IQR 77-85), 3 (17.6%) patients were male, and median BMI was 23.9 kg/m2 (IQR 21.0-26.0). Most frequent presentation symptoms were pain (100%), regurgitation (88.2%), and dyspnea (17.6%). No intraoperative complication, conversion to open surgery or stomach resections were recorded. Two complications of grade 3 according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and one of grade 2 occurred; all were successfully treated until resolution. The median length of hospital stay was 8 days (IQR 5-16). After a mean follow-up of 15.9 months (IQR 6.5-25.6) only two small axial asymptomatic recurrences that required no treatment. Despite limitations, our study demonstrated a very low rate of intra- and postoperative complications, likely supporting the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted treatment for paraesophageal hernias in emergency settings. Larger studies with a control arm are needed to validate our initial findings.

Switching from robotic-assisted extended transabdominal preperitoneal (eTAPP) to totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) hernia repair for umbilical and epigastric hernias

Our study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of the robotic-assisted extended totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) repair compared to transabdominal preperitoneal (eTAPP) repair with a suprapubic trocar insertion to treat umbilical and epigastric hernias. On a prospectively maintained database, we identified patients who underwent either eTEP or eTAPP for treating umbilical and epigastric hernias. During the study period, 53 patients were included, 32 in the eTEP group and 21 in the eTAPP group. The mean age was 59.0 ± 13.9 years, 45 patients (84.9%) were male, and the mean BMI was 28.0 ± 5.9 kg/m2. Most hernias were umbilical (81.1%) and primary (83.0%). The operative time for eTEP was slightly shorter than for eTAPP (106 ± 43 min vs. 126 ± 74 min, p = 0.232). Postoperatively, only one case of bleeding and one seroma were recorded. No complication occurred during a mean follow-up of 11.3 ± 6.4 months in the eTEP group and 20.5 ± 9.7 months in the eTAPP group. In conclusion, our study showed that the eTEP with suprapubic approach was safe and feasible in the treatment of epigastric and umbilical hernias. According to our experience, shorter operative time, integrity of the posterior layers and increased overlap size are the main surgical reasons of switching from eTAPP to eTEP.

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.

Primary Petit Hernia: From Diagnosis to Open Surgical Approach

Lumbar hernias are quite rare, even more so when primary or of spontaneous nature. These defects in the lumbar region demand a comprehensive knowledge of the anatomy of the lateral abdominal wall and paraspinal muscles. Given the proximity of bone structures, they can pose a surgical challenge when trying to achieve an ideal dissection and appropriate mesh overlap. The authors report the case of a primary Petit's hernia that underwent an open anterior surgical approach with the use of a preperitoneal mesh. In addition to the described surgical technique, the article also aims to detail the diagnosis and anatomic classification of this rare pathology.

Robotic versus open lateral abdominal hernia repair: a multicenter propensity score matched analysis of perioperative and 1-year outcomes

PURPOSE

Lateral abdominal hernias are inherently challenging surgical entities. As such, there has been an increase in the adoption of robotic platforms to approach these challenging hernias. Our study aims to assess and compare outcomes between open (oLAHR) and robotic (rLAHR) lateral abdominal hernia repair using a national hernia-specific database.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative was performed to include all adult patients who underwent elective lateral hernia repair. A propensity score match analysis was conducted, and univariate analyses were conducted to compare these two surgical modalities across perioperative timeframes.

RESULTS

The database identified 2569 patients. Our analysis matched 665 patients to either the open or robotic groups. The median length of stay, surgical site occurrences (SSO), and surgical site occurrences requiring procedural interventions (SSOPI) were higher in the oLAHR versus the rLAHR group. Overall, oLAHR had a significantly higher rate of having any post-operative complications or any SSO/SSOPI. There was no difference in quality-of-life measures between groups at 30 days and 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Robotic abdominal hernia repair is a safe alternative compared to the open repair of lateral abdominal hernias with better perioperative outcomes. Despite having a longer operative time, the robotic approach can offer a significantly shorter length of stay and an overall lower rate of complications. Ultimately, there is no difference in the quality-of-life measures both at 30 days and 1 year between the open and robotic approaches.

What are the influencing factors on the outcome in lateral incisional hernia repair? A registry-based multivariable analysis

Introduction

Incisional hernias following lateral abdominal wall incisions with an incidence of 1–4% are less common than following medial incisions at 14–19%. The proportion of lateral incisional hernias in the total collective of all incisional hernias is around 17%. Compared to midline defects, lateral incisional hernias are more difficult to repair because of the more complex anatomy and localization. A recent systematic review identified only 11 publications with a total of 345 patients reporting on lateral incisional hernia repair. Therefore, further studies are urgently needed.

Methods

Multivariable analysis of the data available for 6,306 patients with primary elective lateral incisional hernia repair was performed to assess the confirmatory pre-defined potential influence factors and their association with the perioperative and one-year follow-up outcomes.

Results

In primary elective lateral incisional hernia repair, open onlay, open IPOM and suture procedures were found to have an unfavorable effect on the recurrence rate. This was also true for larger defect sizes and higher BMI. A particularly unfavorable relationship was identified between larger defect sizes and perioperative complications. Laparoscopic-IPOM presented a higher risk of intraoperative, and open sublay of postoperative, complications. The chronic pain rates were especially unfavorably influenced by the postoperative complications, preoperative pain and female gender.

Conclusion

Open-onlay, open IPOM and suture procedures, larger defect sizes, female gender, higher BMI, preoperative pain and postoperative complications are associated with unfavorable outcomes following primary elective lateral incisional hernia repair.

ROBOTIC TRANS-ABDOMINAL PREPERITONEAL APPROACH (TAPP) APPROACH FOR LATERAL INCISIONAL HERNIAS

Background:

Lateral incisional hernias arise between the linea alba and the posterior paraspinal muscles. Anatomical boundaries contain various topographic variations, such as multiple nearby bony structures and paucity of aponeurotic tissue that make it particularly challenging to repair.

Aim:

To describe a robotic assisted surgical technique for incisional lumbar hernia repair.

Methods:

Retrospective data was collected from four patients who underwent robotic-assisted repair of their lumbar hernias after open nephrectomies.

Results:

Age ranged from 41-53 y. Two patients had right sided flank hernias while the other two on the left. One patient had a recurrent hernia on the left side. The patients were placed in lateral decubitus position contralateral to the hernia defect side. A trans-abdominal preperitoneal approach was used in all cases. Each case was accomplished with two 8 mm robotic ports, a 12 mm periumbilical port, and a 5 mm assistance port that allowed docking on the ipsilateral hernia side. The hernias were identified, a preperitoneal plane was created, and the hernia sac completely dissected allowing for complete visualization of the defect. All defects were primarily closed. Polypropylene or ProGrip^TM mesh was applied with at least 5 cm overlap and secured using either #0 Vicryl^® transfacial sutures, Evicel^® or a combination of both. The peritoneal space was closed with running suture and the ports were removed and closed. The average surgical length was 4 hr. The post-operative length of stay ranged from 0-2 days.

Conclusion:

The robotics platform may provide unique advantages in the repair of lateral incisional hernias and represents a safe, feasible and effective minimally invasive approach for the correction of lateral incisional hernias.

Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Perioperative Outcomes

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the role of robotic-assisted surgery in patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery (RBS). According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was performed: (("sleeve"AND "gastr*")OR "bariatric"OR "gastric bypass")AND("robot*"OR "DaVinci"OR "Da Vinci")AND("revision*"OR "conversion*"). In this review, six studies with 29,890 patients were included (2459 in the robotic group). No difference in postoperative complications (RR 1.070, 95%CI 0.930-1.231, p = 0.950), conversions to open surgery (RR 1.339, 95%CI 0.736-2.438, p = 0.339), length of stay (SMD - 0.041, 95%CI - 0.420-0.337, p = 0.831) or operative time (RR 0.219, 95%CI - 0.539-0.977, p = 0.571) was found. This systematic review and meta-analysis showed no significant advantage of robotic-assisted RBS; on the other hand, it showed a non-inferior efficacy compared to standard laparoscopy.