, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 375–385 | Cite as

Robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair and transversus abdominis release: short-term outcomes and risk factors associated with perioperative complications

  • F. Gokcal
  • S. Morrison
  • O. Y. KudsiEmail author
Original Article



Retromuscular ventral hernia repairs have become increasingly popular, both with and without transversus abdominis release. We aim to describe our 90-day outcomes in patients who underwent robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair (RRVHR).


All patients were subcategorized into those who underwent a TAR (TAR+) as part of their repair, and those who did not (TAR−). Patient demographics, comorbidities, hernia characteristics, and LOS were studied. Perioperative complications were reviewed in four different time frames up to 90 days. All hernias and complications were classified using the recommended classification systems. Appropriate univariate analyses and multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine the hernia characteristics which required a TAR technique, and risk factors which associated with the development of complications.


Of 454 robotic ventral hernia repairs, 101 patients who underwent RRVHR were included into the study. Of these, 54 patients underwent RRVHR with TAR while the remaining 47 patients underwent repair without TAR. Incisional hernias, off-midline locations, and larger size defects were factors that required the addition of a TAR. In 9.9% patients, an unplanned TAR was performed. Postoperative pain assessment was similar in both groups. LOS was significantly longer for TAR + group (p < 0.001). The median Comprehension Complication Index® score was 8.7 (range: 0–42.4) for all patients and was significantly higher for TAR+ group (p = 0.014). Complications were higher in the TAR+ group as compared to the TAR− group (p = 0.028), though this difference did not persist in follow-up. Most complications were minor (Clavien–Dindo grade-I and -II). The development of complications was only associated with the presence of an incarcerated hernia at repair.


RRVHR is safe and feasible. 9.9% of our cohort required a TAR that was unplanned, particularly incisional hernias. TAR patients may be more prone to complications in the immediate post-operative period, however, the difference between patients with and without TAR adjuncts resolved at 90 days.


Robot-assisted laparoscopy Ventral hernia repair Transversus abdominis release Incisional hernia Retromuscular Retrorectus Rives–Stoppa Sublay 



The authors would like to thank Dr. Elif Gokcal for helping us with this study.

Compliance with ethical standards 

Conflict of interest

Drs. Gokcal and Morrison have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Dr. Kudsi receives teaching course and/or consultancy fees from Intuitive, Bard, Medtronic, Gore, Optecks, Medrobotic, outside the submitted work.

Ethical approval

The Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Human and animal rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Carbonell AM, Warren JA, Prabhu AS, Ballecer CD, Janczyk RJ, Herrera J, Huang LC, Phillips S, Rosen MJ, Poulose BK (2018) 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 267(2):210–217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bittner JGT, Alrefai S, Vy M, Mabe M, Del Prado PAR, Clingempeel NL (2018) Comparative analysis of open and robotic transversus abdominis release for ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 32(2):727–734. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Voeller GR (2007) Innovations in ventral hernia repair. Surg Technol Int 16:117–122Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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(5):709–716. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Majumder A, Miller HJ, Del Campo LM, Soltanian H, Novitsky YW (2018) Assessment of myofascial medialization following posterior component separation via transversus abdominis muscle release in a cadaveric model. Hernia 22(4):637–644. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Novitsky YW, Fayezizadeh M, Majumder A, Neupane R, Elliott HL, Orenstein SB (2016) Outcomes of posterior component separation with transversus abdominis muscle release and synthetic mesh sublay reinforcement. Ann Surg 264(2):226–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kudsi OY, Paluvoi N, Bhurtel P, McCabe Z, El-Jabri R (2015) Robotic repair of ventral hernias: preliminary findings of a case series of 106 consecutive cases. Am J Robot Surg 2(1):22–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Allison N, Tieu K, Snyder B, Pigazzi A, Wilson E (2012) Technical feasibility of robot-assisted ventral hernia repair. World J Surg 36(2):447–452. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sugiyama G, Chivukula S, Chung PJ, Alfonso A (2015) Robot-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal ventral hernia repair. JSLS 19:4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Warren JA, Cobb WS, Ewing JA, Carbonell AM (2017) Standard laparoscopic versus robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 31(1):324–332. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martin-Del-Campo LA, Weltz AS, Belyansky I, Novitsky YW (2018) Comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes of robotic versus open transversus abdominis release. Surg Endosc 32(2):840–845. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen YJ, Huynh D, Nguyen S, Chin E, Divino C, Zhang L (2017) Outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic repair of small-sized ventral hernias. Surg Endosc 31(3):1275–1279. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muysoms FE, Miserez M, Berrevoet F, Campanelli G, Champault GG, Chelala E, Dietz UA, Eker HH, El Nakadi I, Hauters P, Hidalgo Pascual M, Hoeferlin A, Klinge U, Montgomery A, Simmermacher RK, Simons MP, Smietanski M, Sommeling C, Tollens T, Vierendeels T, Kingsnorth A (2009) Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia 13(4):407–414. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petro CC, Novitsky YW (2016) Classification of hernias. Hernia Surgery. Springer, Berlin, pp 15–21Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Breuing K, Butler CE, Ferzoco S, Franz M, Hultman CS, Kilbridge JF, Rosen M, Silverman RP, Vargo D (2010) Incisional ventral hernias: review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery 148(3):544–558. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J, Puhan MA, Clavien PA (2013) The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 258(1):1–7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stoppa RE (1989) The treatment of complicated groin and incisional hernias. World J Surg 13(5):545–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rives J, Pire JC, Flament JB, Palot JP, Body C (1985) Treatment of large eventrations. New therapeutic indications apropos of 322 cases. Chirurgie 111(3):215–225Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wantz GE (1998) Giant prosthetic reinforcement of the visceral sac. The Stoppa groin hernia repair. Surg Clin North Am 78(6):1075–1087. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iqbal CW, Pham TH, Joseph A, Mai J, Thompson GB, Sarr MG (2007) Long-term outcome of 254 complex incisional hernia repairs using the modified Rives-Stoppa technique. World J Surg 31(12):2398–2404. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rives J, Pire J, Flament J, Palot J (1987) Major incisional hernias. Chevrel JP Hernias and surgery of the abdominal wall. Springer, Berlin, pp 116–144Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Amaral MV, Guimarães JR, Volpe P, Oliveira F, Domene CE, Rolls S, Cavazzola LT (2017) Robotic transversus abdominis release (TAR): is it possible to offer minimally invasive surgery for abdominal wall complex defects? Rev Col Brasil Cirurg 44(2):216–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carbonell A (2008) Interparietal hernias after open retromuscular hernia repair. Hernia 12(6):663–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schroeder AD, Debus ES, Schroeder M, Reinpold WM (2013) Laparoscopic transperitoneal sublay mesh repair: a new technique for the cure of ventral and incisional hernias. Surg Endosc 27(2):648–654. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Muysoms F, Van Cleven S, Pletinckx P, Ballecer C, Ramaswamy A (2018) Robotic transabdominal retromuscular umbilical prosthetic hernia repair (TARUP): observational study on the operative time during the learning curve. Hernia. Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    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(2):423–429. (discussion 430) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    ten Broek RP, Strik C, Issa Y, Bleichrodt RP, van Goor H (2013) Adhesiolysis-related morbidity in abdominal surgery. Ann Surg 258(1):98–106. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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(6):582–586. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sowula A, Groele H (2003) [Treatment of incarcerated abdominal hernia]. Wiad Lek 56(1–2):40–44Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Turner PL, Park AE (2008) Laparoscopic repair of ventral incisional hernias: pros and cons. Surg Clin North Am 88(1):85–100, viii. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bittner R, Bingener-Casey J, Dietz U, Fabian M, Ferzli GS, Fortelny RH, Kockerling F, Kukleta J, Leblanc K, Lomanto D, Misra MC, Bansal VK, Morales-Conde S, Ramshaw B, Reinpold W, Rim S, Rohr M, Schrittwieser R, Simon T, Smietanski M, Stechemesser B, Timoney M, Chowbey P, International Endohernia S (2014) Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)-part 1. Surg Endosc 28(1):2–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    LeBlanc K (2016) Proper mesh overlap is a key determinant in hernia recurrence following laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair. Hernia 20(1):85–99. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tulloh B, de Beaux A (2016) Defects and donuts: the importance of the mesh:defect area ratio. Hernia 20(6):893–895. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hauters P, Desmet J, Gherardi D, Dewaele S, Poilvache H, Malvaux P (2017) Assessment of predictive factors for recurrence in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair using a bridging technique. Surg Endosc 31(9):3656–3663. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rosen MJ, Fatima J, Sarr MG (2010) Repair of abdominal wall hernias with restoration of abdominal wall function. J Gastrointest Surg 14(1):175–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Good Samaritan Medical CenterTufts University School of MedicineBrocktonUSA

Personalised recommendations