Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 324–332 | Cite as

Standard laparoscopic versus robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair

  • Jeremy A. Warren
  • William S. Cobb
  • Joseph A. Ewing
  • Alfredo M. Carbonell
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) demonstrates comparable recurrence rates, but lower incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) than open repair. Delayed complications can occur with intraperitoneal mesh, particularly if a subsequent abdominal operation is required, potentially resulting in bowel injury. Robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair (RRVHR) allows abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) and extraperitoneal mesh placement previously only possible with open repair, with the wound morbidity of LVHR.

Methods

All LVHR and RRVHR performed in our institution between June 2013 and May 2015 contained in the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative database were analyzed. Continuous bivariate analysis was performed with Student’s t test. Continuous nonparametric data were compared with Chi-squared test, or Fisher’s exact for small sample sizes. p values <0.05 were considered significant.

Results

We compared 103 LVHR with 53 RRVHR. LVHR patients were older (60.2 vs. 52.9 years; p = 0.001), but demographics were otherwise similar between groups. Hernia width was similar (6.9 vs. 6.5 cm, p = 0.508). Fascial closure was achieved more often with RRVHR (96.2 vs. 50.5 %; p < 0.001) and aided by myofascial release in 43.4 %. Mesh was placed in an intraperitoneal position in 90.3 % of LVHR and extraperitoneal in 96.2 % of RRVHR. RRVHR operative time was longer (245 vs. 122 min, p < 0.001). Narcotic requirement was similar between LVHR and RRVHR (1.8 vs. 1.4 morphine equivalents/h; p = 0.176). Seroma was more common after RRVHR (47.2 vs. 16.5 %, p < 0.001), but SSI was similar (3.8 vs. 1 %, p = 0.592). Median length of stay was shorter after RRVHR (1 vs. 2 days, p = 0.004). Direct hospital cost was similar (LVHR $13,943 vs. RRVHR $19,532; p = 0.07).

Conclusion

RRVHR enables true AWR, with myofascial release to offset tension for midline fascial closure, and obviates the need for intraperitoneal mesh. Perioperative morbidity of RRVHR is comparable to LVHR, with shorter length of stay despite a longer operative time and extensive tissue dissection.

Keywords

Robotic Laparoscopic Ventral hernia repair Retromuscular 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Drs. Warren and Carbonell are speakers for Intuitive Surgical. Drs. Warren, Cobb, and Carbonell are consultants for Ethicon, W.L. Gore, and Maquet Surgical. Joseph Ewing has no financial disclosures.

References

  1. 1.
    LeBlanc KA, Booth WV (1993) Laparoscopic repair of incisional abdominal hernias using expanded polytetrafluoroethylene: preliminary findings. Surg Laparosc Endosc 3:39–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vorst AL, Kaoutzanis C, Carbonell AM, Franz MG (2015) Evolution and advances in laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair. World J Gastrointest Surg 7:293–305CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tsui C, Klein R, Garabrant M (2013) Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy. Surg Endosc 27:2253–2257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ramshaw BJ, Esartia P, Schwab J (1999) Comparison of laparoscopic and open ventral herniorrhapy. Am Surg 65:827–832PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pierce RA, Spitler JA, Frisella MM, Matthews BD, Brunt LM (2007) Pooled data analysis of laparoscopic vs. open ventral hernia repair: 14 years of patient data accrual. Surg Endosc 21:378–386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halabi WJ, Jafari MD, Carmichael JC, Nguyen VQ, Mills S, Phelan M, Stamos MJ, Pigazzi A (2013) Laparoscopic versus open repair of parastomal hernias: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 27:4067–4072CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Itani KMF, Hur K, Kim LT, Anthony T, Berger DH, Reda D, Neumayer L, Veterans Affairs Ventral Incisional Hernia Investigators (2010) Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair with mesh for the treatment of ventral incisional hernia: a randomized trial. Arch Surg 145:322–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Muysoms F, Vander Mijnsbrugge G, Pletinckx P, Boldo E, Jacobs I, Michiels M, Ceulemans R (2013) Randomized clinical trial of mesh fixation with “double crown” versus “sutures and tackers” in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Hernia 17:603–612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Colavita PD, Tsirline VB, Belyansky I, Walters AL, Lincourt AE, Sing RF, Heniford BT (2012) Prospective, long-term comparison of quality of life in laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia repair. Ann Surg 256:714–722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liang MK, Clapp M, Li LT, Berger RL, Hicks SC (2013) Patient satisfaction, chronic pain, and functional status following laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. World J Surg 37:530–537CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halm JA, De Wall LL, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2007) Intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh hernia repair complicates subsequent abdominal surgery. World J Surg 31:423–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gray SH, Vick CC, Graham LA, Finan KR, Neumayer LA, Hawn MT (2008) Risk of complications from enterotomy or unplanned bowel resection during elective hernia repair. Arch Surg 143:582–586CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shaver M, Cobb WS, Carbonell AM (2016) A 10-year experience with periprosthetic mesh infections. Hernia Supp 1:S66Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carter SA, Hicks SC, Brahmbhatt R, Liang MK (2014) Recurrence and pseudorecurrence after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: predictors and patient-focused outcomes. Am Surg 80:138–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kurmann A, Visth E, Candinas D, Beldi G (2011) Long-term follow-up of open and laparoscopic repair of large incisional hernias. World J Surg 35:297–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burger JWA, Luijendijk RW, Hop WCJ, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EGG, Jeekel J (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240:578–583PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Booth JH, Garvey PB, Baumann DP, Selber JC, Nguyen AT, Clemens MW, Liu J, Butler CE (2013) Primary fascial closure with mesh reinforcement is superior to bridged mesh repair for abdominal wall reconstruction. J Am Coll Surg 217:999–1009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Itani KMF, Rosen M, Vargo D, Awad SS, Denoto G, Butler CE, RICH Study Group (2012) Prospective study of single-stage repair of contaminated hernias using a biologic porcine tissue matrix: the RICH study. Surgery 152:498–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rives J, Pire JC, Flament JB, Convers G (1977) Treatment of large eventrations (apropos of 133 cases). Minerva Chir 32:749–756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jin J, Rosen MJ (2008) Laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia repair. Surg Clin N Am 88:1083–1100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Albino FP, Patel KM, Nahabedian MY, Sosin M, Attinger CE, Bhanot P (2013) Does mesh location matter in abdominal wall reconstruction? a systematic review of the literature and a summary of recommendations. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:1295–1304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Israelsson LA, Smedberg S, Montgomery A, Nordin P (2006) Incisional hernia repair in Sweden 2002. Hernia 10:258–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rodríguez-Sanjuán JC, Gómez-Ruiz M, Trugeda-Carrera S, Manuel-Palazuelos C, López-Useros A, Gómez-Fleitas M (2016) Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: present and future directions. World J Gastronterol 22:1975–2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Altieri MS, Yang J, Telem DA, Zhu J, Halbert C, Talamini M, Pryor AD (2016) Robotic approaches may offer benefit in colorectal procedures, more controversial in other areas: a review of 168,248 cases. Surg Endosc 30:925–933CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Abdalla RZ, Garcia RB, Costa R, Luca C (2012) Procedimento de Rives/Stoppa modificado robô-assistido para correção de hérnias ventrais da linha média. ABCD Arq Bras Cir Dig 25:129–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Warren J, Cobb W, Ewing J, Carbonell A (2015) Prospective observational cohort study of robotic vs open Rives-Stoppa retrorectus incisional hernia repair. Hernia 19:S177–S186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Banerjee A, Beck C, Narula VK, Linn J, Noria S, Zagol B, Mikami DJ (2012) Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: does primary repair in addition to placement of mesh decrease recurrence? Surg Endosc 26:1264–1268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Allison N, Tieu K, Snyder B, Pigazzi A, Wilson E (2012) Technical feasibility of robot-assisted ventral hernia repair. World J Surg 36:447–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gonzalez AM, Romero RJ, Seetharamaiah R, Gallas M, Lamoureux J, Rabaza JR (2015) Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with primary closure versus no primary closure of the defect: potential benefits of the robotic technology. Int J Med Robot 11:120–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dragu A, Klein P, Unglaub F, Polykandriotis E, Kneser U, Hohenberger W, Horch RE (2009) Tensiometry as a decision tool for abdominal wall reconstruction with component separation. World J Surg 33:1174–1180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Orenstein SB, Dumeer JL, Monteagudo J, Poi MJ, Novitsky YW (2011) Outcomes of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with routine defect closure using “shoelacing” technique. Surg Endosc 25:1452–1457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harth KC, Rosen MJ (2010) Endoscopic versus open component separation in complex abdominal wall reconstruction. Am J Surg 199:342–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Novitsky YW, Elliott HL, Orenstein SB, Rosen MJ (2012) Transversus abdominis muscle release: a novel approach to posterior component separation during complex abdominal wall reconstruction. Am J Surg 204:709–716CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Willard FH, Vleeming A, Schuenke MD, Danneels L, Schleip R (2012) The thoracolumbar fascia: anatomy, function and clinical considerations. J Anat 221:507–536CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    De Silva GS, Krpata DM, Hicks CW, Criss CN, Gao Y, Rosen MJ, Novitsky YW (2014) Comparative radiographic analysis of changes in the abdominal wall musculature morphology after open posterior component separation or bridging laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.  J Am Coll Surg 218:353–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Snyder CW, Graham LA, Gray SH, Vick CC (2011) Effect of mesh type and position on subsequent abdominal operations after incisional hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 212:496–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Liang MK, Li LT, Nguyen MT, Berger RL, Hicks SC, Kao LS (2014) Abdominal reoperation and mesh explantation following open ventral hernia repair with mesh. Am J Surg 208:670–676CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jenkins ED, Yom V, Melman L, Brunt LM, Eagon JC, Frisella MM, Matthews BD (2010) Prospective evaluation of adhesion characteristics to intraperitoneal mesh and adhesiolysis-related complications during laparoscopic re-exploration after prior ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 24:3002–3007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cobb WS, Warren JA, Ewing JA, Burnikel A, Merchant M, Carbonell AM (2015) Open retromuscular mesh repair of complex incisional hernia: predictors of wound events and recurrence. J Am Coll Surg 220:606–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeremy A. Warren
    • 1
  • William S. Cobb
    • 1
  • Joseph A. Ewing
    • 2
  • Alfredo M. Carbonell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville, Greenville Health SystemGreenvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Quality ManagementGreenville Health SystemGreenvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations