Robot-assisted abdominal wall surgery: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.
Cost
Inguinal hernia
Length of stay
Outcome
Postoperative complication
Ventral hernia
Journal
Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery
ISSN: 1248-9204
Titre abrégé: Hernia
Pays: France
ID NLM: 9715168
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2019
02 2019
Historique:
received:
14
05
2018
accepted:
02
12
2018
pubmed:
14
12
2018
medline:
9
4
2020
entrez:
8
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The number of robot-assisted hernia repairs is increasing, but the potential benefits have not been well described. The aim of this study was to evaluate the available literature reporting on outcomes after robot-assisted hernia repairs. This is a qualitative review and meta-analysis of papers evaluating short-term outcomes after inguinal or ventral robot-assisted hernia repair compared with either open or laparoscopic approach. The primary outcome was postoperative complications and secondary outcomes were duration of surgery, postoperative length of stay and financial costs. Fifteen studies were included. Postoperative complications were significantly decreased after robot-assisted inguinal hernia repair compared with open repair. There were no differences in complications between robot-assisted and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. For ventral hernia repair, sutured closure of the defect, retromuscular mesh placement and transversus abdominis release is feasible when using the robot. Length of stay was decreased by a mean of 3 days for robot-assisted repairs compared with open approach. There were no differences in postoperative complications and the operative time was significantly longer for robot-assisted ventral hernia repair compared with laparoscopic or open approach. For ventral hernias that would normally require an open procedure, a robot-assisted repair may be a good option, as the use of a minimally invasive approach for these procedures decreases length of stay significantly. For inguinal hernias, the benefit of the robot is questionable. Randomized controlled trials and prospective studies are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30523566
doi: 10.1007/s10029-018-1872-3
pii: 10.1007/s10029-018-1872-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
17-27Références
Surg Endosc. 2017 Mar;31(3):1275-1279
pubmed: 27450207
BMC Surg. 2017 May 10;17(1):55
pubmed: 28490321
JSLS. 2011 Jan-Mar;15(1):47-52
pubmed: 21902942
Surg Endosc. 2018 Apr;32(4):1901-1905
pubmed: 29411133
Surg Endosc. 2012 Mar;26(3):598-606
pubmed: 21993935
J Robot Surg. 2018 Dec;12(4):625-632
pubmed: 29453731
Surg Endosc. 2017 Mar;31(3):1045-1060
pubmed: 27444830
Am J Surg. 2017 Dec;214(6):1158-1163
pubmed: 29017732
Ann Surg. 2018 Feb;267(2):210-217
pubmed: 28350568
J Robot Surg. 2016 Sep;10(3):239-44
pubmed: 27112781
Ann Surg. 2018 Feb;267(2):218-219
pubmed: 28632516
Surg Endosc. 2018 Feb;32(2):727-734
pubmed: 28730275
Surg Endosc. 2018 Apr;32(4):2131-2136
pubmed: 29067575
Br J Surg. 2018 Jan;105(1):37-47
pubmed: 29227530
Int J Med Robot. 2015 Jun;11(2):120-5
pubmed: 25236697
J Am Coll Surg. 2017 Aug;225(2):285-293
pubmed: 28450062
Surg Innov. 2016 Apr;23(2):134-41
pubmed: 26603694
Br J Surg. 2016 Nov;103(12):1598-1607
pubmed: 27546188
World J Surg. 2017 Sep;41(9):2251-2257
pubmed: 28337532
Surg Endosc. 2018 Jan;32(1):229-235
pubmed: 28646321
JSLS. 2011 Jul-Sep;15(3):309-14
pubmed: 21985715
J Robot Surg. 2018 Sep;12(3):523-527
pubmed: 29302848
Surg Endosc. 2017 Jan;31(1):324-332
pubmed: 27287903
Surg Endosc. 2018 Feb;32(2):840-845
pubmed: 28733746
Surg Endosc. 2018 Apr;32(4):1834-1839
pubmed: 29052065