Robot-assisted Treatment of Epigastric Hernias With a Suprapubic Approach.
Journal
Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques
ISSN: 1534-4908
Titre abrégé: Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100888751
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Apr 2021
23 Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
18
01
2021
accepted:
15
02
2021
pubmed:
27
4
2021
medline:
25
11
2021
entrez:
26
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Robot-assisted ventral hernia repair has shown itself to be feasible and safe in abdominal wall surgery. Presently, the ports are placed laterally to meet the distance from the fascial defect. The aim of our study is to report our experience of epigastric hernia treatment with trocar insertion in the suprapubic region. On a prospectively collected dataset on robot-assisted surgery, patients treated for epigastric hernias with suprapubic approach were identified. Demographic and clinical data were collected and analyzed. Twelve patients were selected. Median age was 58.5 years [interquartile range (IQR): 47.8 to 67.3 y]; 4 patients were male (33.3%) and the median body mass index was 23.9 kg/m2 (IQR: 22.3 to 26.2 kg/m2). All patients were referred to surgery because of pain. The median measure of the hernia defect was 30 mm (IQR: 13.75 to 31.0 mm); median larger mesh diameter was 13.5 cm (IQR: 9.5 to 15.0 cm); and median operative time was 136.5 minutes (IQR: 120.0 to 186.5 min). No intraoperative complication or conversion to open surgery occurred. Postoperatively, 2 patients presented a seroma and median length of hospital stay was 2.0 days (IQR: 1.75 to 3 d). No case of hernia recurrence was recorded at a mean follow-up of 11.2 months (range: 4 to 29 mo). In the robot-assisted treatment of hernias of the epigastric region, a suprapubic port placement can be considered instead of a lateral one to have a better field overview, especially in subxiphoid hernias. Further studies are needed to assess the benefits and limitations of such technique.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Robot-assisted ventral hernia repair has shown itself to be feasible and safe in abdominal wall surgery. Presently, the ports are placed laterally to meet the distance from the fascial defect. The aim of our study is to report our experience of epigastric hernia treatment with trocar insertion in the suprapubic region.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
On a prospectively collected dataset on robot-assisted surgery, patients treated for epigastric hernias with suprapubic approach were identified. Demographic and clinical data were collected and analyzed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twelve patients were selected. Median age was 58.5 years [interquartile range (IQR): 47.8 to 67.3 y]; 4 patients were male (33.3%) and the median body mass index was 23.9 kg/m2 (IQR: 22.3 to 26.2 kg/m2). All patients were referred to surgery because of pain. The median measure of the hernia defect was 30 mm (IQR: 13.75 to 31.0 mm); median larger mesh diameter was 13.5 cm (IQR: 9.5 to 15.0 cm); and median operative time was 136.5 minutes (IQR: 120.0 to 186.5 min). No intraoperative complication or conversion to open surgery occurred. Postoperatively, 2 patients presented a seroma and median length of hospital stay was 2.0 days (IQR: 1.75 to 3 d). No case of hernia recurrence was recorded at a mean follow-up of 11.2 months (range: 4 to 29 mo).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In the robot-assisted treatment of hernias of the epigastric region, a suprapubic port placement can be considered instead of a lateral one to have a better field overview, especially in subxiphoid hernias. Further studies are needed to assess the benefits and limitations of such technique.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33900226
doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000941
pii: 00129689-202110000-00016
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
584-587Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Henriksen NA, Jensen KK, Muysoms F. Robot-assisted abdominal wall surgery: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Hernia. 2019;23:17–27.
Sugiyama G, Chivukula S, Chung PJ, et al. Robot-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal ventral hernia repair. JSLS. 2015;19:e2015.00092.
Tayar C, Karoui M, Cherqui D, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic mesh repair of incisional hernias with exclusive intracorporeal suturing: a pilot study. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:1786–1789.
Allison N, Tieu K, Snyder B, et al. Technical feasibility of robot-assisted ventral hernia repair. World J Surg. 2012;36:447–452.
Dauser B, Hartig N, Vedadinejad M, et al. Robotic-assisted repair of complex ventral hernia: can it pay off? J Robot Surg. 2021;15:45–52.
Gonzalez A, Escobar E, Romero R, et al. Robotic-assisted ventral hernia repair: a multicenter evaluation of clinical outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:1342–1349.
Sharbaugh ME, Patel PB, Zaman JA, et al. Robotic ventral hernia repair: a safe and durable approach. Hernia. 2019. [Epub ahead of print].
Warren JA, Cobb WS, Ewing JA, et al. Standard laparoscopic versus robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:324–332.
Muysoms FE, Miserez M, Berrevoet F, et al. Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia. 2009;13:407–414.
LeBlanc KA, Booth WV. Laparoscopic repair of incisional abdominal hernias using expanded polytetrafluoroethylene: preliminary findings. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1993;3:39–41.
Misiakos EP, Patapis P, Zavras N, et al. Current trends in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. JSLS. 2015;19:e2015.00048.
Poelman M, Apers J, van den Brand H, et al. The INCH-Trial: a multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of conventional open surgery and laparoscopic surgery for incisional hernia repair. BMC Surg. 2013;13:18.
Itani KM, Hur K, Kim LT, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair with mesh for the treatment of ventral incisional hernia: a randomized trial. Arch Surg. 2010;145:322–328; discussion 328.
Beldi G, Ipaktchi R, Wagner M, et al. Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair is safe and cost effective. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:92–95.
Bittner R, Bain K, Bansal VK, et al. Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)): Part B. Surg Endosc. 2019;33:3511–3549.
Abdalla RZ, Garcia RB, Costa RI, et al. Modified robot assisted Rives/Stoppa videosurgery for midline ventral hernia repair. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2012;25:129–132.
Chen YJ, Huynh D, Nguyen S, et al. Outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic repair of small-sized ventral hernias. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:1275–1279.
Kudsi OY, Paluvoi N, Bhurtel P, et al. Robotic repair of ventral hernias: preliminary findings of a case series of 106 consecutive cases. Am J Robot Surg. 2015;2:22–26.
Halpern DK, Howell RS, Boinpally H, et al. Ascending the learning curve of robotic abdominal wall reconstruction. JSLS. 2019;23:e2018.00084.
LaPinska M, Kleppe K, Webb L, et al. Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic hernia repair: real-world evidence from the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC). Surg Endosc. 2021;35:1331–1341.
Walker PA, May AC, Mo J, et al. Multicenter review of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: is there a role for robotics? Surg Endosc. 2018;32:1901–1905.
Gokcal F, Morrison S, Kudsi OY. Robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair and transversus abdominis release: short-term outcomes and risk factors associated with perioperative complications. Hernia. 2019;23:375–385.
Bittner JGt, Alrefai S, Vy M, et al. Comparative analysis of open and robotic transversus abdominis release for ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:727–734.
Schulte Am Esch J, Iosivan SI, Steinfurth F, et al. A standardized suprapubic bottom-to-up approach in robotic right colectomy: technical and oncological advances for complete mesocolic excision (CME). BMC Surg. 2019;19:72.
Lee HJ, Choi GS, Park JS, et al. A novel robotic right colectomy for colon cancer via the suprapubic approach using the da Vinci Xi system: initial clinical experience. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2018;94:83–87.
Petz W, Ribero D, Bertani E, et al. Suprapubic approach for robotic complete mesocolic excision in right colectomy: oncologic safety and short-term outcomes of an original technique. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:2060–2066.
Petz W, Ribero D, Bertani E, et al. Robotic right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision: bottom-to-up suprapubic approach—a video vignette. Colorectal Dis. 2017;19:788–789.
Costa TN, Abdalla RZ, Santo MA, et al. Transabdominal midline reconstruction by minimally invasive surgery: technique and results. Hernia. 2016;20:257–265.
Bittner R, Bingener-Casey J, Dietz U, et al. Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society [IEHS])—Part II. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:353–379.
Mongelli F, Ferrario di Tor Vajana A, FitzGerald M, et al. Open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery: a cost analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019;29:608–613.
Di Giuseppe M, Saporito A, La Regina D, et al. Ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block in patients undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2020;35:1741–1747.