Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spin is present in the majority of articles evaluating robot-assisted groin hernia repair: a systematic review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The number of scientific articles published each year is increasing, resulting in greater competition to get work published. Spin is defined as specific reporting strategies used to distort the readers’ interpretation of results so that they are viewed more favorable. However, prevalence of spin in studies comparing robot-assisted groin hernia repair with traditional methods is unknown.

Objectives/aim

To determine the frequency and extent of spin in studies assessing robot-assisted groin hernia repair.

Methods

This systematic review was reported according to PRISMA guidelines, and a protocol was registered at PROSPERO before data extraction. Database search included PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central.

Results

Of 35 included studies, spin was present in 57%. Within these, 95% had spin present in the abstract and 80% in the conclusion of the article. There was no association between study size and spin (p > 0.05). However, presence of spin in studies positively minded towards robot-assisted hernia repair was higher (p < 0.001) compared with those against or being neutral in their view of the procedure. Furthermore, being funded by or receiving grants from Intuitive Surgical were associated with a higher prevalence of spin (p < 0.05) compared with those who were not.

Conclusion

Spin was found to be common in articles reporting on robot-assisted groin hernia repair, and presence of spin was higher in studies funded by or receiving grants from the robot company. This suggests that readers should be cautious when reading similar literature.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data, code and other materials

All relevant data are available in the presented article.

References

  1. HerniaSurge Group (2018) International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia 22:1–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kingsnorth A, LeBlanc K (2003) Hernias: inguinal and incisional. Lancet 362:1561–1571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB (2020) Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open 3:e1918911

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Andresen K, Rosenberg J (2021) Decreasing use of open procedures in elective inguinal hernia surgery. Laparosc Surg 5:17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Micheletto G, Bruni PG, Lombardo F, Perali C et al (2019) Robotic inguinal hernia repair: is technology taking over? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia 23:509–519

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Micheletto G, Lombardo F, Bonitta G, Morlacchi A et al (2019) Primary inguinal hernia: systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, totally extraperitoneal, and robotic preperitoneal repair. Hernia 23:473–484

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Qabbani A, Aboumarzouk OM, ElBakry T, Al-Ansari A, Elakkad MS (2021) Robotic inguinal hernia repair: systematic review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg 91:2277–2287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rosenberg J (2019) A critical appraisal about robotic-assisted surgery. Laparosc Surg 3:50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gunnarsson U, Dahlstrand U, Strigård K (2021) Is robotic-assisted surgery a step in the right direction for routine inguinal hernia repair? Laparosc Surg. in press

  10. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG (2010) Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA 303:2058–2064

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Vera-Badillo F, Tannock I, Ravaud P (2014) Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 32:4120–4126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Patel SV, Van Koughnett JAM, Howe B, Wexner SD (2015) Spin is common in studies assessing robotic colorectal surgery: an assessment of reporting and interpretation of study results. Dis Colon Rectum 58:878–884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Hansen DL, Fonnes S, Rosenberg J (2021) Spin in studies assessing robotic groin hernia repair: a systematic review (CRD42021244618). https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=244618. Accessed 14 Nov 2021

  15. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A (2021) Rayyan QCRI. https://rayyan.qcri.org/reviews. Accessed 14 Nov 2021

  16. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R (2005) Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ 331:1064–1065

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L (2017) ‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: a methodological systematic review. PLoS Biol 15:e2002173

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al (2021) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 14 Nov 2021

  19. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I et al (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366:l4898

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Aghayeva A, Benlice C, Bilgin IA, Bengur FB, Bas M, Kirbiyik E et al (2020) Laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal vs robotic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: assessment of short- and long-term outcomes. Int J Med Robot 16:e2111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gundogdu E, Guldogan CE, Ozmen MM (2020) Bilateral inguinal hernia repair: robotic TAPP versus laparoscopic TEP. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 31:439–443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Janjua H, Cousin-Peterson E, Barry TM, Kuo MC, Baker MS, Kuo PC (2019) The paradox of the robotic approach to inguinal hernia repair in the inpatient setting. Am J Surg 219:497–501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Janjua H, Cousin-Peterson E, Barry TM, Kuo MC, Baker MS, Kuo PC (2020) Robotic approach to outpatient inguinal hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 231:61–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vossler JD, Pavlosky KK, Murayama SM, Moucharite MA, Murayama KM, Mikami DJ (2019) Predictors of robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. J Surg Res 241:247–253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kadakia N, Malek K, Lee SK, Lee EJ, Burruss S, Srikureja D et al (2020) Impact of robotic surgery on residency training for herniorrhaphy and cholecystectomy. Am Surg 86:1318–1323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Khoraki J, Gomez PP, Mazzini GS, Pessoa BM, Browning MG, Aquilina GR et al (2020) Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 34:3496–3507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kosturakis AK, LaRusso KE, Carroll ND, Nicholl MB (2018) First 100 consecutive robotic inguinal hernia repairs at a veterans affairs hospital. J Robot Surg 12:699–704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kolachalam R, Dickens E, D’Amico L, Richardson C, Rabaza J, Gamagami R et al (2018) Early outcomes of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair in obese patients: a multi-institutional retrospective study. Surg Endosc 32:229–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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 41:2251–2257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. LeBlanc K, Dickens E, Gonzalez A, Gamagami R, Pierce R, Balentine C et al (2020) 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 24:1069–1081

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Abdelmoaty WF, Dunst CM, Neighorn C, Swanstrom LL, Hammill CW (2019) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a comprehensive cost analysis. Surg Endosc 33:3436–3443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mehaffey JH, Michaels AD, Mullen MG, Yount KW, Meneveau MO, Smith PW et al (2017) Adoption of robotics in a general surgery residency program: at what cost? J Surg Res 213:269–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mustafa S, Handren E, Farmer D, Ontiveros E, Ogola GO, Leeds SG (2019) Robotic curriculum enhances minimally invasive general surgery residents’ education. J Surg Educ 76:548–553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Muysoms F, Vierstraete M, Nachtergaele F, Van Garsse S, Pletinckx P, Ramaswamy A (2021) Economic assessment of starting robot-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in a single-centre retrospective comparative study: the EASTER study. BJS Open 5:zraa046

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 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 32:4850–4859

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dhanani NH, Olavarria OA, Millas S, Askenasy EP, Ko TC, Liang MK et al (2020) Is robotic surgery feasible at a safety net hospital? Surg Endosc 35:4452–4458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Prabhu AS, Carbonell A, Hope W, Warren J, Higgins R, Jacob B et al (2020) Robotic inguinal vs transabdominal laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: the RIVAL randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 155:380–387

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Higgins RM, Frelich MJ, Bosler ME, Gould JC (2016) Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures. Surg Endosc 31:185–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rose ED, Modlin DM, Ciampa ML, Mangieri CW, Faler BJ, Bandera BC (2019) Evaluation of operative waste in a military medical center: analysis of operating room cost and waste during surgical cases. Am Surg 85:717–720

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Saito T, Fukami Y, Uchino T, Kurahashi S, Matsumura T, Osawa T et al (2020) Preliminary results of robotic inguinal hernia repair following its introduction in a single-center trial. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 4:441–447

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Sheldon RR, Do WS, Weiss JB, Forte DM, Sohn VY (2019) Sage wisdom or anecdotal dictum? Equivalent opioid use after open, laparoscopic, and robotic inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg 217:839–842

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. AlMarzooqi R, Tish S, Huang L-C, Prabhu A, Rosen M (2019) Review of inguinal hernia repair techniques within the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative. Hernia 23:429–438

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Tatarian T, Nie L, McPartland C, Brown AM, Yang J, Altieri MS, et al (2021) Comparative perioperative and 5-year outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic or open inguinal hernia repair: a study of 153,727 patients in the state of New York. Surg Endosc. In press

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Zayan NE, Meara MP, Schwartz JS, Narula VK (2019) A direct comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hernia repair: patient-reported outcomes and cost analysis. Hernia 23:1115–1121

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Truong A, Al-Aufey BS, Towfigh S (2019) Step-by-step guide to safe removal of pre-peritoneal inguinal mesh. Surg Endosc 33:2680–2685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bittner Iv JG, Cesnik LW, Kirwan T, Wolf L, Guo D (2018) Patient perceptions of acute pain and activity disruption following inguinal hernia repair: a propensity-matched comparison of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open approaches. J Robot Surg 12:625–632

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Pokala B, Armijo PR, Flores L, Hennings D, Oleynikov D (2019) Minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair is superior to open: a national database review. Hernia 23:593–599

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 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 32:2131–2136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kakiashvili E, Bez M, Abu Shakra I, Ganam S, Bickel A, Merei F et al (2021) Robotic inguinal hernia repair: is it a new era in the management of inguinal hernia? Asian J Surg 44:93–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 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 22:827–836

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Tracy BM, Finnegan TM, Smith RN, Senkowski CK (2020) Random forest modeling using socioeconomic distress predicts hernia repair approach. Surg Endosc 35:3890–3895

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Huerta S, Timmerman C, Argo M, Favela J, Pham T, Kukreja S et al (2019) Open, laparoscopic, and robotic inguinal hernia repair: outcomes and predictors of complications. J Surg Res 241:119–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL (2003) Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? J Am Med Assoc 290:921–928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Emerson GB, Warme WJ, Wolf FM, Heckman JD, Brand RA, Leopold SS (2010) Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 170:1934–1939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Publications Output: U.S. trends and international comparisons | NSF—National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20206/executive-summary. Accessed 14 Nov 2021

  57. Barrow JM, Brannan GD, Khandhar PB (2021) Research ethics. StatPearls 2021

  58. Resnik DB, Shamoo AE (2011) The Singapore statement on research integrity. Account Res 18:71

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study received no funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Perioperative Optimisation, Department of Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, 2730, Herlev, Denmark

    Danni Lip Hansen, Siv Fonnes & Jacob Rosenberg

Authors
  1. Danni Lip Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siv Fonnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jacob Rosenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danni Lip Hansen.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Mr. Hansen, Dr. Fonnes and Prof. Rosenberg have no conflicts of interest or financial tires to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 38 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hansen, D.L., Fonnes, S. & Rosenberg, J. Spin is present in the majority of articles evaluating robot-assisted groin hernia repair: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 36, 2271–2278 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08990-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08990-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation