Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundThe number of robotic surgical procedures performed yearly is constantly rising, due to improved dexterity and visualization capabilities compared with conventional methods. We hypothesized that outcomes after robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair would not be significantly different from outcomes after laparoscopic or open repair.MethodsAll patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair between 2012 and 2016 were identified using institutional American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Demographics; preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative characteristics; and outcomes were evaluated based on method of repair (Robot, Lap, or Open). Categorical variables were analyzed by Chi-square test and continuous variables using Mann–Whitney U.ResultsA total of 510 patients were identified who underwent unilateral inguinal hernia repair (Robot: 13.8% [n = 69], Lap: 48.1% [n = 241], Open: 38.1% [n = 191]). There were no demographic differences between groups other than age (Robot: 52 [39–62], Lap: 57 [45–67], and Open: 56 [48–67] years, p = 0.03). Operative duration was also different (Robot: 105 [76–146] vs. Lap: 81 [61–103] vs. Open: 71 [56–88] min, p < 0.001). There were no operative mortalities and all patients except one were discharged home the same day. Postoperative occurrences (adverse events, readmissions, and death) were similar between groups (Robot: 2.9% [2], Lap: 3.3% [8], Open: 5.2% [10], p = 0.53). Although rare, there was a significant difference in rate of postoperative skin and soft tissue infection (Robot: 2.9% [2] vs. Lap: 0% [0] vs. Open: 0.5% [1], p = 0.02). Cost was significantly different between groups (Robot: $7162 [$5942–8375] vs. Lap: $4527 [$2310–6003] vs. Open: $4264 [$3277–5143], p < 0.001).ConclusionsOutcomes after robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair were similar to outcomes after laparoscopic or open repair. Longer operative duration during robotic repair may contribute to higher rates of skin and soft tissue infection. Higher cost should be considered, along with surgeon comfort level and patient preference when deciding whether inguinal hernia repair is approached robotically.

Purpose International guidelines suggest the use of lapro-endoscopic technique for primary unilateral inguinal hernia (IHR) because of lower postoperative pain and reduction in chronic pain. It is unclear if the primary benefit is due to the minimally invasive approach, the posterior mesh position or both. Further research evaluating posterior mesh placement using open preperitoneal techniques is recommended. A potential benefit of open preperitoneal repair is the avoidance of general anesthesia, as these repairs can be performed under local anesthesia. This study compares clinical and patient-reported outcomes after unilateral laparo-endoscopic, robotic, and open posterior mesh IHRs. Methods We performed a propensity score matched analysis of patients undergoing IHR between 2012 and 2021 in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative registry. 10,409 patients underwent a unilateral IHR via a posterior approach. Hernia repairs were performed via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) which includes laparoscopic and robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP), laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP), or open transrectus preperitoneal/open preperitoneal (TREPP/OPP) approaches. Propensity score matching (PSM) utilizing nearest neighbor matching accounted for differences in baseline characteristics and possible confounding variables between groups. We matched 816 patients in the MIS cohort with 816 patients in the TREPP/OPP group. Outcomes included patient reported quality of life, hernia recurrence, and postoperative opioid use. Results Improvement was seen after TREPP/OPP as compared to MIS IHR in EuraHS at 30 days (Median(IQR) 7.0 (2.0–16.64) vs 10 (2.0–24.0); OR 0.69 [0.55–0.85]; p  = 0.001) and 6 months (1.0 (0.0–4.0) vs 2.0 (0.0–4.0); OR 0.63 [0.46–85]; p  = 0.002), patient-reported opioid use at 30-day follow-up (18% vs 45% OR 0.26 [0.19–0.35]; p  < 0.001), and rates of surgical site occurrences (0.8% vs 4.9% OR 0.16 [0.06–0.35]; p  < 0.001). There were no differences in EuraHS scores and recurrences at 1 year. Conclusions This study demonstrates a potential benefit of open posterior mesh placement over MIS repair in short-term quality of life and seroma formation with equivalent rates of hernia recurrence. Further study is needed to better understand these differences and determine the reproducibility of these findings outside of high-volume specialty centers.

Introduction Inguinal hernia repair lacks a standard repair technique, with laparo-endoscopic and open preperitoneal methods showing similar outcomes. Despite higher costs, the popularity of robotic surgery is on the rise, driven by technological advantages. Controversies persist in comparing open repair techniques with the robotic approach, given contradictory results. The objective of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes, including complications, chronic pain, and recurrence, between open and robotic-assisted preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. Methods This single-center retrospective study encompassed patients undergoing elective inguinal hernia repair in a specialized unit, employing both open preperitoneal and robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches from September 2018 to May 2023. Comparative analysis of short- and long-term outcomes between these techniques was conducted. Additionally, multivariate logistic regression was employed to explore predictors of postoperative complications. Results A total of 308 patients met the inclusion criteria. 198 (64%) patients underwent surgery using an open preperitoneal approach and 110 (36%) using robot-assisted laparoscopy. Patients in the robot-assisted group were younger (P = 0.006) and had fewer comorbidities (P < 0.001). There were no differences between the groups in terms of postoperative complications (P = 0.133), chronic pain (P = 0.463) or recurrence (P = 0.192). Multivariate analysis identified ASA ≥ III (OR, 1.763; 95%CI, 1.068–3.994; P = 0.027) and inguinoscrotal hernias (OR, 2.371, 95%CI, 1.407–3.944; P = 0.001) as risk factors of postoperative complications. Conclusions Both open preperitoneal and robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches show similar outcomes for complications, chronic pain, and recurrence when performed by experienced surgeons. The open preperitoneal approach, with its quicker operative time, may be advantageous for high-comorbidity cases. Treatment choice should consider patient factors, surgeon experience, and healthcare resources.

PurposeTo compare clinical outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic hernia repairs for direct, unilateral inguinal hernia repairs, with particular focus on 30-day morbidity surgical site infection (SSI); surgical site occurrence (SSO); SSI/SSO requiring procedural interventions (SSOPI), reoperation, and recurrence.MethodsThe Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database was queried for patients undergoing elective, primary, > 3 cm medial, unilateral inguinal hernia repairs with an open (Lichtenstein), laparoscopic, or robotic operative approach. Preoperative demographics and patient characteristics, operative techniques, and outcomes were studied. A 1-to-1 propensity score matching algorithm was used for each operative approach pair to reduce selection bias.ResultsThere were 848 operations included: 297 were open, 285 laparoscopic, and 266 robotic hernia repairs. There was no evidence of a difference in primary endpoints at 30 days including SSI, SSO, SSI/SSO requiring procedural interventions (SSOPI), reoperation, readmission, or recurrence for any of the operative approach pairs (open vs. robotic, open vs. laparoscopic, robotic vs. laparoscopic). For the open vs. laparoscopic groups, QoL score at 30 day was lower (better) for laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery (OR 0.53 [0.31, 0.92], p = 0.03), but this difference did not hold at the 1-year survey (OR 1.37 [0.48, 3.92], p = 0.55). Similarly, patients who underwent robotic repair were more likely to have a higher (worse) 30-day QoL score (OR 2.01 [1.18, 3.42], p = 0.01), but no evidence of a difference at 1 year (OR 0.83 [0.3, 2.26] p = 0.71).ConclusionsOur study did not reveal significant post-operative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for large medial inguinal hernias. Surgeons should continue to tailor operative approach based on patient needs and their own surgical expertise.

Few publications describe the potential benefit of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair on acute postoperative groin pain (APGP). This study compared patients’ perceptions of APGP, activity limitation, and overall satisfaction after robotic-assisted- (R), laparoscopic (L), or open (O) inguinal hernia repair (IHR). Random samples of patients from two web-based research panels and surgical practices were screened for patients who underwent IHR between October 28, 2015 and November 1, 2016. Qualified patients were surveyed to assess perceived APGP at 1 week postoperatively, activity disruption, and overall satisfaction. Three cohorts based on operative approach were compared after propensity matching. Propensity scoring resulted in 83 R-IHR matched to 83 L-IHR respondents, while 85 R-IHR matched with 85 O-IHR respondents. R-IHR respondents recalled less APGP compared to respondents who had O-IHR (4.1 ± 0.3 vs 5.6 ± 0.3, p  < 0.01) but similar APGP compared to L-IHR (4.0 ± 0.3 vs 4.4 ± 0.3, p  = 0.37). Respondents recalled less activity disruption 1 week postoperatively after R-IHR versus O-IHR (6.1 ± 0.3 vs. 7.3 ± 0.2, p  < 0.01) but similar levels of activity disruption after R-IHR and L-IHR (6.0 ± 0.3 vs. 6.6 ± 0.27, p  = 0.32). At the time of the survey, respondents perceived less physical activity disruption after R-IHR compared to O-IHR (1.4 ± 0.2 vs. 2.8 ± 0.4, p  < 0.01) but similar between R-IHR and L-IHR (1.3 ± 0.2 vs 1.2 ± 0.2, p  = 0.94). Most respondents felt satisfied with their outcome regardless of operative approach. Patient perceptions of pain and activity disruption differ by approach, suggesting a potential advantage of a minimally invasive technique over open for IHR. Further studies are warranted to determine long-term outcomes regarding pain and quality of life after IHR.

Repair of inguinal hernia is one of the most common operations in general surgery. The aim of the current study is to analyze the scientific studies in the field of laparoscopic inguinal hernias by ISI Web of Knowledge-Web of Science (WoS) software by using keywords. Overall,2832 papers were found related to laparoscopic inguinal hernia. The first publication and the first citation were from Australia in 1991. The biggest scientific contribution was from the USA ( n  = 650), the types of publications dominantly were articles (76.80%), most of publications were in English (93.18%), and the most contributed author was Bittner R ( n  = 63) from Germany. Our study revealed that scientific studies on this field will probably continue to rise in parallel with this increasing interest.

IntroductionRobotic inguinal hernia repair is growing in popularity among general surgeons despite little high-quality evidence supporting short- or long-term advantages over traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. The original RIVAL trial showed increased operative time, cost, and surgeon frustration for the robotic approach without advantages over laparoscopy. Here we report the 1- and 2-year outcomes of the trial.MethodsThis is a multi-center, patient-blinded, randomized clinical study conducted at six sites from 2016 to 2019, comparing laparoscopic versus robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair with follow-up at 1 and 2 years. Outcomes include pain (visual analog scale), neuropathic pain (Leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs pain scale), wound morbidity, composite hernia recurrence (patient-reported and clinical exam), health-related quality of life (36-item short-form health survey), and physical activity (physical activity assessment tool).ResultsEarly trial participation included 102 patients; 83 (81%) completed 1-year follow-up (45 laparoscopic vs. 38 robotic) and 77 (75%) completed 2-year follow-up (43 laparoscopic vs. 34 robotic). At 1 and 2 years, pain was similar for both groups. No patients in either treatment arm experienced neuropathic pain. Health-related quality of life and physical activity were similar for both groups at 1 and 2 years. No long-term wound morbidity was seen for either repair type. At 2 years, there was no difference in hernia recurrence (1 laparoscopic vs. 1 robotic; P = 1.0).ConclusionsLaparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repairs have similar long-term outcomes when performed by surgeons with experience in minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs.

Background This study was done to assess the effectiveness of Schley’s inguinal hernia repair. It is a retrospective study analysing the outcome of patients who received the said technique over a period of 1 year at our institution. The minimum and the maximum follow-up periods were 2 and 3 years. Method The patients who underwent the above technique in 2011 were reviewed retrospectively in December 2013 by going through the hospital records and examining the patients in person. Results 105 patients had undergone surgery in 2011. The majority of them had right-sided hernias and were in 40–59 age group. Two cases of wound infection, one case of haematocele and one hernia recurrence were noted. Operating on the recurrent hernia was straightforward. Conclusion Schley’s inguinal hernia repair is an effective technique with favourable outcome.

Purpose This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic transabdominal peritoneal repair (TAPP) for unilateral inguinal hernia. Methods This single institutional retrospective cohort study used de-identified data of patients who underwent robotic TAPP (R-TAPP) or laparoscopic TAPP (L-TAPP) for unilateral inguinal hernia between January 1, 2016 and October 31, 2021. Two cohorts were propensity matched, and data were analyzed. The learning curve was evaluated in the R-TAPP group. Results Among 938 patients analyzed, 704 were included. After propensity-score matching, 80 patients were included in each group. The difference in operative time between R-TAPP and L-TAPP groups was 10 min (99.5 and 89.5 min, p  = 0.087); however, console/laparoscopic time was similar (67 and 66 min, p  = 0.71). The dissection time for medial-type hernia in the R-TAPP group was marginally shorter than that in the L-TAPP group (17 and 27 min, p  = 0.056); however, there was no difference for lateral-type hernia (38.5 and 40 min p  = 0.37). Perioperative variables, including estimated blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative pain, had no significant difference, and chronic pain, which needed medication or intervention, was not observed in each group. The number of cases needed to achieve plateau performance was 7–10 in the R-TAPP group. Conclusion This study suggests that R-TAPP was safely introduced, and its perioperative outcomes were not inferior to those of L-TAPP. A shorter dissection time for medial-type hernia might be due to the robot’s advantages, and a fast-learning curve could help with the early standardization of the procedure.

BackgroundThe utilization of laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair in China remains unclear. We aim to investigate the rates of laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repairs and its associated factors at a large hernia center.MethodsData were obtained from the front sheet of medical records of Beijing Chaoyang hospital. Adult inguinal hernia inpatients who underwent hernia repairs between 2013 and 2020 were included. We calculated the overall rates of laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repairs and compared the rate of laparoscopic repairs between different sex, age groups, types, and sides of inguinal hernias. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with the rate of laparoscopic repairs.Results14,481 inpatients with inguinal hernia were included. 91.78% were male, 75.43% were more than 50 years, 75.20% were unilateral inguinal hernia, and 64.57% were indirect inguinal hernia. Overall, 49.47% underwent laparoscopic repairs and 50.53% underwent open repairs. Women had lower rate of laparoscopic repair than men, especially in those with unilateral hernias. Bilateral and direct inguinal hernia had higher rates of laparoscopic repair than unilateral and indirect inguinal hernia. Multivariable logistic regression showed that inpatients who were women, > 70 years, pantaloon inguinal hernia, with obstruction, and more comorbidities were less likely to have laparoscopic repairs.ConclusionAround 50% of inguinal hernia patients at a large hernia center underwent laparoscopic repairs, which was more commonly performed in male, young, bilateral inguinal hernia, and inpatients without comorbidities. More efforts were needed to increase the safe and effective laparoscopic utilization among female patients with inguinal hernias.