Skip to main content

Hernia Repair: Robot or No Robot?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The SAGES Manual of Quality, Outcomes and Patient Safety

Abstract

The utilization of minimally invasive techniques to repair hernias has continued to rise, and with the increasing use of the da Vinci robotic surgical system in general surgery, new methods have begun to emerge to repair abdominal wall hernias robotically. The use of the da Vinci robotic surgical system to repair inguinal hernias can achieve clinical results similar to traditional laparoscopy but with additional cost and operative time. A robotic inguinal hernia repair can be considered in situations where a laparoscopic transabdominal pre-peritoneal approach is necessary but prior surgeon experience with laparoscopic transabdominal pre-peritoneal approach is limited. Robotic ventral hernia repair offers a wide variety of repair techniques, many of which have been previously accomplished via traditional laparoscopy including robotic intraperitoneal onlay mesh, robotic pre-peritoneal, robotic retrorectus and transversus abdominis release, and robotic extended total extraperitoneal. Robotic equivalent techniques can typically accomplish increased fascial closure rates while avoiding transfascial sutures. More research needs to be conducted on the clinical benefits of increased fascial closure rates, but some studies point to a possible reduction in recurrence rates. Currently, the most promising use of the robot in ventral hernias exists with retrorectus and transversus abdominis release wherein the traditional laparoscopic repair is not achievable; therefore the clinical benefits of reduced wound morbidity, decreased post-operative pain, and reduced length-of-stay compared to the open technique are obtainable. Cost-effective practices in robotic hernia repairs have generally not been able to reach costs that compete with traditional laparoscopy or open repair techniques; however cost savings can occur if robotic repair techniques are chosen in situations that utilize cheaper non-coated mesh while reducing length of stay. Although touted and anecdotally reported as having an ergonomic benefit compared to traditional laparoscopy, more studies are required to examine the true ergonomic benefits in utilizing the da Vinci robotic surgical system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Podolsky D, Novitsky Y. Robotic inguinal hernia repair. Surg Clin N Am. 2020;100:409–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Prabhu AS, Carbonell A, Hope W, Warren J, Higgins R, Jacob B, Blatnik J, Haskins I, Alkhatib H, Tastaldi L, Fafaj A, Tu C, Rosen MJ. Robotic inguinal vs transabdominal laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: the RIVAL randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2020;155:380.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Pokala B, Armijo PR, Flores L, Hennings D, Oleynikov D. Minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair is superior to open: a national database review. Hernia. 2019;23:593–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Abdelmoaty WF, Dunst CM, Neighorn C, Swanstrom LL, Hammill CW. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a comprehensive cost analysis. Surg Endosc. 2019;33:3436–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Khoraki J, Gomez PP, Mazzini GS, Pessoa BM, Browning MG, Aquilina GR, Salluzzo JL, Wolfe LG, Campos GM. Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:3496–507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Micheletto G, Bruni PG, Lombardo F, Perali C, Bonitta G, Bona D. Robotic inguinal hernia repair: is technology taking over? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia. 2019;23:509–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. The Prospective Hernia Study Group, LeBlanc K, Dickens E, Gonzalez A, Gamagami R, Pierce R, Balentine C, Voeller G. Prospective, multicenter, pairwise analysis of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair with open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: early results from the Prospective Hernia Study. Hernia. 2020;

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pokala B, Armijo PR, Flores L, Hennings D, Oleynikov D. Minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair is superior to open: a national database review. Hernia. 2019;23:593–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gonzalez A, Escobar E, Romero R, Walker G, Mejias J, Gallas M, Dickens E, Johnson CJ, Rabaza J, Kudsi OY. Robotic-assisted ventral hernia repair: a multicenter evaluation of clinical outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:1342–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Clapp ML, Hicks SC, Awad SS, Liang MK. Trans-cutaneous closure of central defects (TCCD) in laparoscopic ventral hernia repairs (LVHR). World J Surg. 2013;37:42–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nguyen DH, Nguyen MT, Askenasy EP, Kao LS, Liang MK. Primary fascial closure with laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: systematic review. World J Surg. 2014;38:3097–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fuenmayor P, Lujan HJ, Plasencia G, Karmaker A, Mata W, Vecin N. Robotic-assisted ventral and incisional hernia repair with hernia defect closure and intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) experience. J Robotic Surg. 2020;14(5):695–701.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Henriksen NA, Jensen KK, Muysoms F. Robot-assisted abdominal wall surgery: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Hernia. 2019;23:17–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Prabhu AS, Dickens EO, Copper CM, Mann JW, Yunis JP, Phillips S, Huang L-C, Poulose BK, Rosen MJ. Laparoscopic vs robotic intraperitoneal mesh repair for incisional hernia: an Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative Analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225:285–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Walker PA, May AC, Mo J, Cherla DV, Santillan MR, Kim S, Ryan H, Shah SK, Wilson EB, Tsuda S. Multicenter review of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: is there a role for robotics? Surg Endosc. 2018;32:1901–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zayan NE, Meara MP, Schwartz JS, Narula VK. A direct comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hernia repair: patient-reported outcomes and cost analysis. Hernia. 2019;23:1115–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kennedy M, Barrera K, Akelik A, Constable Y, Smith M, Chung P, Sugiyama G. Robotic TAPP ventral hernia repair: early lessons learned at an inner city safety net hospital. JSLS. 2018;22:e2017.00070.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Kudsi OY, Gokcal F. Lateral approach totally extraperitoneal (TEP) robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair. Hernia. 2021;25(1):211–22.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Orthopoulos G, Kudsi OY. Feasibility of robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal ventral hernia repair. J Laparoendoscop Adv Surg Tech. 2018;28:434–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Carbonell AM, Warren JA, Prabhu AS, Ballecer CD, Janczyk RJ, Herrera J, Huang L-C, Phillips S, Rosen MJ, Poulose BK. Reducing length of stay using a robotic-assisted approach for retromuscular ventral hernia repair: a comparative analysis from the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative. Ann Surg. 2018;267:210–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Martin-del-Campo LA, Weltz AS, Belyansky I, Novitsky YW. Comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes of robotic versus open transversus abdominis release. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:840–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bittner JG, Alrefai S, Vy M, Mabe M, Del Prado PAR, Clingempeel NL. Comparative analysis of open and robotic transversus abdominis release for ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:727–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lu R, Addo A, Ewart Z, Broda A, Parlacoski S, Zahiri HR, Belyansky I. Comparative review of outcomes: laparoscopic and robotic enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) access retrorectus repairs. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:3597–605.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Belyansky I, Reza Zahiri H, Sanford Z, Weltz AS, Park A. Early operative outcomes of endoscopic (eTEP access) robotic-assisted retromuscular abdominal wall hernia repair. Hernia. 2018;22:837–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Warren JA, Cobb WS, Ewing JA, Carbonell AM. Standard laparoscopic versus robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:324–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Olavarria OA, Bernardi K, Shah SK, Wilson TD, Wei S, Pedroza C, Avritscher EB, Loor MM, Ko TC, Kao LS, Liang MK. Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: multicenter, blinded randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2020;370:m2457.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Khorgami Z, Li WT, Jackson TN, Howard CA, Sclabas GM. The cost of robotics: an analysis of the added costs of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery using the National Inpatient Sample. Surg Endosc. 2019;33:2217–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nikolian VC, Coleman NL, Podolsky D, Novitsky YW. Robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal ventral hernia repair. Surg Technol Int. 2020;36:95–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee MR, Lee GI. Does a robotic surgery approach offer optimal ergonomics to gynecologic surgeons?: a comprehensive ergonomics survey study in gynecologic robotic surgery. J Gynecol Oncol. 2017;28:e70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. McAtamney L, Nigel CE. RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon. 1993;24(2):91–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rana M. Higgins .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Madion, M., Higgins, R.M. (2022). Hernia Repair: Robot or No Robot?. In: Romanelli, J.R., Dort, J.M., Kowalski, R.B., Sinha, P. (eds) The SAGES Manual of Quality, Outcomes and Patient Safety. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94610-4_46

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94610-4_46

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-94609-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-94610-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics