, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 1019–1020 | Cite as

Robotic transabdominal preperitoneal approach for repair of primary, uncomplicated ventral hernias

  • K. H. Tunder
  • C. BallecerEmail author
Letter to the Editor
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Forum on primary midline uncomplicated ventral hernia

Ventral hernia repair is one of the most commonly performed general surgery procedures with an estimated 200,000 patients requiring repair each year. Recurrence rates for primary suture repair have been reported to be as high as 54%, which has been reduced by more than half with the use of mesh. Despite its prevalence, there is much discussion on appropriate operative techniques and mesh placement for patients with ventral hernias. Literature has shown that placing mesh intraabdominally increases intraperitoneal adhesions and increases the likelihood of bowel erosion or fistulas. Intraperitoneal mesh may also negatively impact any future subsequent surgical intervention as well.

Preperitoneal placement of mesh allows the mesh to incorporate on both sides, eliminating the need for full-thickness fixation which has been associated with increased acute and chronic pain. Prasad et al. reported that 2.3% of patients who underwent the intraperitoneal mesh placement with tacking had prolonged...


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest related to the topic of this manuscript.

Ethical approval

For this type of study ethical approval is not required.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Van den Tol MP et al (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 343:392–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Halm JA, De Wall LL, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2007) Intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh hernia repair complicates subsequent abdominal surgery. World J Surg 31:423–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 143:582–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martin DF, Williams RF, Mulrooney T, Voeller GR (2008) Ventralex mesh in umbilical/epigastric hernia repairs: clinical outcomes and complications. Hernia 12(4):379–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 37:530–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ballecer C, Weir A (2017) Robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (rTAPP) hernia repair for ventral hernias. In: Hope W, Cobb W, Adrales G (eds) Textbook of hernia. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prasad P, Tantia O, Patle NM, Khanna S, Sen B (2011) Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair of ventral hernia: a step towards physiological repair. Indian J Surg 73:403–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Orthopoulos G, Kudsi OY (2018) Feasibility of robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal ventral hernia repair. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 28(4):434–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Luque JA, Luque AB, Menchero JG, Grau JM, Moreno JG, Gomez AT, Jurado JG (2017) Safety and effectiveness of selfadhesive mesh in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair using transabdominal preperitoneal route. Surg Endosc 31:1213–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Minimally Invasive and Robotic SurgeryPeoriaUSA

Personalised recommendations