Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Utilization of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair (IHR) has increased in recent years, but randomized or prospective studies comparing outcomes and cost of laparoscopic and Robotic-IHR are still lacking. With conflicting results from only five retrospective series available in the literature comparing the two approaches, the question remains whether current robotic technology provides any added benefits to treat inguinal hernias. We aimed to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of Robotic-IHR versus laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal IHR (Laparoscopic–IHR).

Methods

Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent Robotic-IHR or Laparoscopic-IHR at a dedicated MIS unit in the USA from February 2015 to June 2017. Demographics, anthropometrics, the proportion of bilateral and recurrent hernias, operative details, cost, length of stay, 30-day readmissions and reoperations, and rates and severity of complications were compared.

Results

183 patients had surgery: 45 (24.6%) Robotic-IHR and 138 (75.4%) Laparoscopic-IHR. There were no differences between groups in age, gender, BMI, ASA class, the proportion of bilateral hernias and recurrent hernias, and length of stay. Operative time (Robotic-IHR: 116 ± 36 min, vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 95±44 min, p < 0.01), reoperations (Robotic-IHR: 6.7%, vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 0%, p = 0.01), and readmissions rates were greater for Robotic-IHR. While the overall perioperative complication rate was similar in between groups (Robotic-IHR: 28.9% vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 18.1%, p = 0.14), Robotic-IHR was associated with a significantly greater proportion of grades III and IV complications (Robotic-IHR: 6.7% vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 0%, p = 0.01). Total hospital cost was significantly higher for the Robotic-IHRs ($9993 vs. $5994, p < 0.01). The added cost associated with the robotic device itself was $3106 per case and the total cost of disposable supplies was comparable between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

In the setting in which it was studied, the outcomes of Laparoscopic-IHR were significantly superior to the Robotic-IHR, at lower hospital costs. Laparoscopic-IHR remains the preferred minimally invasive surgical approach to treat inguinal hernias.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rutkow IM (2003) Demographic and socioeconomic aspects of hernia repair in the United States in 2003. Surg Clin N Am 83(5):1045–1051, v–vi

  2. Kockerling F, Bittner R, Kofler M, Mayer F, Adolf D, Kuthe A et al (2017) Lichtenstein versus total extraperitoneal patch plasty versus transabdominal patch plasty technique for primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair. A registry-based, propensity score-matched comparison of 57,906 patients. Ann Surg 269(2):351–357

    Google Scholar 

  3. McCormack K, Scott NW, Go PM, Ross S, Grant AM, Collaboration EUHT (2003) Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD001785

  4. Khajanchee YS, Kenyon TA, Hansen PD, Swanstrom LL (2004) Economic evaluation of laparoscopic and open inguinal herniorrhaphies: the effect of cost-containment measures and internal hospital policy decisions on costs and charges. Hernia 8(3):196–202

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ielpo B, Nunez-Alfonsel J, Duran H, Diaz E, Fabra I, Caruso R et al (2018) Cost-effectiveness of Randomized Study of Laparoscopic Versus Open Bilateral Inguinal Hernia Repair. Ann Surg 268(5):725–730

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. McCormack K, Wake B, Perez J, Fraser C, Cook J, McIntosh E et al (2005) Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 9(14):1–203, iii–iv

  7. Coronini-Cronberg S, Appleby J, Thompson J (2013) Application of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data to estimate cost-effectiveness of hernia surgery in England. J R Soc Med 106(7):278–287

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Gholghesaei M, Langeveld HR, Veldkamp R, Bonjer HJ (2005) Costs and quality of life after endoscopic repair of inguinal hernia vs open tension-free repair: a review. Surg Endosc 19(6):816–821

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Corbitt JD Jr (1991) Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1(1):23–25

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Swanstrom LL (1996) Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy. Surg Clin North Am 76(3):483–491

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. National Health Statistics Reports (2017) Ambulatory surgery data from hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers: United States, 2010. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr102.pdf. Updated 28 Feb 2017, cited 2019

  12. Bittner R, Montgomery MA, Arregui E, Bansal V, Bingener J, Bisgaard T et al (2015) Update of guidelines on laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia (International Endohernia Society). Surg Endosc 29(2):289–321

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Willoughby AD, Lim RB, Lustik MB (2017) Open versus laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repairs: defining the ideal BMI to reduce complications. Surg Endosc 31(1):206–214

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Suguita FY, Essu FF, Oliveira LT, Iuamoto LR, Kato JM, Torsani MB et al (2017) Learning curve takes 65 repetitions of totally extraperitoneal laparoscopy on inguinal hernias for reduction of operating time and complications. Surg Endosc 31(10):3939–3945

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. El-Dhuwaib Y, Corless D, Emmett C, Deakin M, Slavin J (2013) Laparoscopic versus open repair of inguinal hernia: a longitudinal cohort study. Surg Endosc 27(3):936–945

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cavazzola LT, Rosen MJ (2013) Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. Surg Clin North Am 93(5):1269–1279

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Neumayer L, Giobbie-Hurder A, Jonasson O, Fitzgibbons R Jr, Dunlop D, Gibbs J et al (2004) Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. N Engl J Med 350(18):1819–1827

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Spencer Netto F, Quereshy F, Camilotti BG, Pitzul K, Kwong J, Jackson T et al (2014) Hospital costs associated with laparoscopic and open inguinal herniorrhaphy. JSLS. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2014.00217

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Hynes DM, Stroupe KT, Luo P, Giobbie-Hurder A, Reda D, Kraft M et al (2006) Cost effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open mesh hernia operation: results of a Department of Veterans Affairs randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Surg 203(4):447–457

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tadaki C, Lomelin D, Simorov A, Jones R, Humphreys M, daSilva M et al (2016) Perioperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 20(3):399–404

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Karthikesalingam A, Markar SR, Holt PJ, Praseedom RK (2010) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open mesh repair of recurrent inguinal hernia. Br J Surg 97(1):4–11

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. O’Reilly EA, Burke JP, O’Connell PR (2012) A meta-analysis of surgical morbidity and recurrence after laparoscopic and open repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernia. Ann Surg 255(5):846–853

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV (2003) Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 170(5):1738–1741

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sumitomo M, Kanao K, Kato Y, Yoshizawa T, Watanabe M, Zennami K et al (2015) Comparative investigation on clinical outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy between experienced open prostatic surgeons and novice open surgeons in a laparoscopically naive center with a limited caseload. Int J Urol 22(5):469–474

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Intuitive Surgical Inc (2017) Intuitive Annual Report 2017. http://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReports/PDF/NASDAQ_ISRG_2017.pdf. Updated 2 Feb 2018; cited 2019

  26. Armijo PR, Pagkratis S, Boilesen E, Tanner T, Oleynikov D (2018) Growth in robotic-assisted procedures is from conversion of laparoscopic procedures and not from open surgeons’ conversion: a study of trends and costs. Surg Endosc 32(4):2106–2113

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Charles EJ, Mehaffey JH, Tache-Leon CA, Hallowell PT, Sawyer RG, Yang Z (2018) Inguinal hernia repair: is there a benefit to using the robot? Surg Endosc 32(4):2131–2136

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kudsi OY, McCarty JC, Paluvoi N, Mabardy AS (2017) Transition from laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair to robotic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a retrospective review of a single surgeon’s experience. World J Surg 41(9):2251–2257

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Muysoms F, Van Cleven S, Kyle-Leinhase I, Ballecer C, Ramaswamy A (2018) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic groin hernia repair: observational case-control study on the operative time during the learning curve. Surg Endosc 32(12):4850–4859

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Abdelmoaty WF, Dunst CM, Neighorn C, Swanstrom LL, Hammill CW (2018) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a comprehensive cost analysis. Surg Endosc 33(10):3436–3443

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Waite KE, Herman MA, Doyle PJ (2016) Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair. J Robot Surg. 10(3):239–244

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Senkowski C, Savarise M, Roth JS, Nagle J (2017) Coding and practice management corner: hernia repair and complex abdominal wall reconstruction. Bull Am Coll Surg 102(4):52–59

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. American Society of Anesthesiologists (2014) ASA Physical Status Classification System 2014. https://www.asahq.org/standards-and-guidelines/asa-physical-status-classification-system. Updated 15 Oct 2014; cited 2019

  34. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD et al (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Nathan JD, Pappas TN (2003) Inguinal hernia: an old condition with new solutions. Ann Surg 238(6 Suppl):S148–S157

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Salcedo-Wasicek MC, Thirlby RC (1995) Postoperative course after inguinal herniorrhaphy: a case-controlled comparison of patients receiving workers’ compensation vs patients with commercial insurance. Arch Surg 130(1):29–32

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Dion YM, Morin J (1992) Laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy. Can J Surg 35(2):209–212

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cadiere GB, Himpens J, Germay O, Izizaw R, Degueldre M, Vandromme J et al (2001) Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J Surg 25(11):1467–1477

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Escobar Dominguez JE, Ramos MG, Seetharamaiah R, Donkor C, Rabaza J, Gonzalez A (2016) Feasibility of robotic inguinal hernia repair, a single-institution experience. Surg Endosc 30(9):4042–4048

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kosturakis AK, LaRusso KE, Carroll ND, Nicholl MB (2018) First 100 consecutive robotic inguinal hernia repairs at a Veterans Affairs Hospital. J Robot Surg. 12(4):699–704

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Iraniha A, Peloquin J (2018) Long-term quality of life and outcomes following robotic assisted TAPP inguinal hernia repair. J Robot Surg. 12(2):261–269

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Arcerito M, Changchien E, Bernal O, Konkoly-Thege A, Moon J (2016) Robotic inguinal hernia repair: technique and early experience. Am Surg 82(10):1014–1017

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gamagami R, Dickens E, Gonzalez A, D’Amico L, Richardson C, Rabaza J et al (2018) Open versus robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (R-TAPP) inguinal hernia repair: a multicenter matched analysis of clinical outcomes. Hernia 22(5):827–836

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. ECRI Institute (2015) Robotic Surgery Infographic 2015. https://www.ecri.org/Resources/ASG/Robotic_Surgery_Infographic_MS15369_web.pdf. Updated Aug 2015; cited 2019

  45. Dixon PR, Grant RC, Urbach DR (2015) The impact of marketing language on patient preference for robot-assisted surgery. Surg Innov. 22(1):15–19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cetrulo LN, Harmon J, Ortiz J, Canter D, Joshi AR (2015) Case report of a robotic-assisted laparoscopic repair of a giant incarcerated recurrent inguinal hernia containing bladder and ureters. Int J Med Robot. 11(1):15–17

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs–the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363(8):701–704

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. van Dam P, Hauspy J, Verkinderen L, Trinh XB, van Dam PJ, Van Looy L et al (2011) Are costs of robot-assisted surgery warranted for gynecological procedures? Obstet Gynecol Int. 2011:973830

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Schwaitzberg SD (2016) Financial modeling of current surgical robotic system in outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy: how should we think about the expense? Surg Endosc 30(5):2082–2085

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Higgins RM, Frelich MJ, Bosler ME, Gould JC (2017) Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures. Surg Endosc 31(1):185–192

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Schneider BE, Castillo JM, Villegas L, Scott DJ, Jones DB (2003) Laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal versus Lichtenstein herniorrhaphy: cost comparison at teaching hospitals. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 13(4):261–267

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. McCracken EKE, Mureebe L, Blazer DG III (2019) Minimally invasive surgical site infection in procedure-targeted aCS NSQIP pancreaticoduodenectomies. J Surg Res 233:183–191

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Diez-Barroso R Jr, Palacio CH, Martinez JA, Makris K, Massarweh NN, Chai CY et al (2018) Robotic port-site hernias after general surgical procedures. J Surg Res 230:7–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Narayanan S, Davidov T (2018) Peritoneal pocket hernia: a distinct cause of early postoperative small bowel obstruction and strangulation: a report of two cases following robotic herniorrhaphy. J Minim Access Surg. 14(2):154–157

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Tsu JH, Ng AT, Wong JK, Wong EM, Ho KL, Yiu MK (2014) Trocar-site hernia at the 8-mm robotic port after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a case report and review of the literature. J Robot Surg. 8(1):89–91

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Tapscott A, Kim SS, White S, Graves R, Kraft K, Casale P (2009) Port-site complications after pediatric urologic robotic surgery. J Robot Surg. 3(3):187

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Voitk AJ (1998) The learning curve in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair for the community general surgeon. Can J Surg 41(6):446–450

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Bariatric and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA

    Jad Khoraki, Pedro P. Gomez, Guilherme S. Mazzini, Bernardo M. Pessoa, Matthew G. Browning, Gretchen R. Aquilina, Jennifer L. Salluzzo, Luke G. Wolfe & Guilherme M. Campos

Authors
  1. Jad Khoraki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pedro P. Gomez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guilherme S. Mazzini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bernardo M. Pessoa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matthew G. Browning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gretchen R. Aquilina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jennifer L. Salluzzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Luke G. Wolfe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Guilherme M. Campos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guilherme M. Campos.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

Drs. Khoraki, Gomez, Mazzini, Pessoa, Browning, Aquilina, Salluzzo, and Campos, and Mr. Wolfe have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khoraki, J., Gomez, P.P., Mazzini, G.S. et al. Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 34, 3496–3507 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07128-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07128-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation