Robotic eTEP versus IPOM evaluation: the REVEAL multicenter randomized clinical trial.
Hernia
IPOM
Retromuscular
Robotic
Ventral
eTEP
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2023
03 2023
Historique:
received:
08
06
2022
accepted:
11
10
2022
pubmed:
4
11
2022
medline:
21
3
2023
entrez:
3
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
For small to medium-sized ventral hernias, robotic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (rIPOM) and enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) repair have emerged as acceptable approaches that each takes advantage of robotic instrumentation. We hypothesized that avoiding mesh fixation in a robotic eTEP repair offers an advantage in early postoperative pain compared to rIPOM. This is a multi-center, randomized clinical trial for patients with midline ventral hernias ≤ 7 cm, who were randomized to rIPOM or robotic eTEP. The primary outcome was pain (0-10) on the first postoperative day. Secondary outcomes included same-day discharge, length of stay, opioid consumption, quality of life, surgeon workload, and cost. Between November 2019 and November 2021, 100 patients were randomized (49 rIPOM, 51 eTEP) among 5 surgeons. Pain on the first postoperative day [median (IQR): 5 (4-6) vs. 5 (3.5-7), p = 0.66] was similar for rIPOM and eTEP, respectively, a difference maintained following adjustments for surgeon, operative time, baseline pain, and patient co-morbidities (difference 0.28, 95% CI - 0.63 to 1.19, p = 0.56). No differences in pain on the day of surgery, 7, and 30 days after surgery were identified. Same-day discharge, length of stay, opioid consumption, and 30-day quality of life were also comparable, though rIPOM required less surgeon workload (p < 0.001), shorter operative time [107 (86-139) vs. 165 (129-212) min, p < 0.001], and resulted in fewer surgical site occurrences (0 vs. 8, p = 0.004). The total direct costs for rIPOM and eTEP were comparable [$8282 (6979-11835) vs. $8680 (7550-10282), p = 0.52] as the cost savings for eTEP attributable to mesh use [$442 (434-485) vs. $69 (62-76), p = < 0.0001] were offset by increased expenses for operative time [$669 (579-861) vs. $1075 (787-1367), p < 0.0001] and use of more robotic equipment [$760 (615-933) vs. $946 (798-1203), p = 0.001]. The avoidance of fixation in a robotic eTEP repair did not reveal a benefit in postoperative pain to offset the shorter operative time and surgeon workload offered by rIPOM.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
For small to medium-sized ventral hernias, robotic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (rIPOM) and enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) repair have emerged as acceptable approaches that each takes advantage of robotic instrumentation. We hypothesized that avoiding mesh fixation in a robotic eTEP repair offers an advantage in early postoperative pain compared to rIPOM.
METHODS
This is a multi-center, randomized clinical trial for patients with midline ventral hernias ≤ 7 cm, who were randomized to rIPOM or robotic eTEP. The primary outcome was pain (0-10) on the first postoperative day. Secondary outcomes included same-day discharge, length of stay, opioid consumption, quality of life, surgeon workload, and cost.
RESULTS
Between November 2019 and November 2021, 100 patients were randomized (49 rIPOM, 51 eTEP) among 5 surgeons. Pain on the first postoperative day [median (IQR): 5 (4-6) vs. 5 (3.5-7), p = 0.66] was similar for rIPOM and eTEP, respectively, a difference maintained following adjustments for surgeon, operative time, baseline pain, and patient co-morbidities (difference 0.28, 95% CI - 0.63 to 1.19, p = 0.56). No differences in pain on the day of surgery, 7, and 30 days after surgery were identified. Same-day discharge, length of stay, opioid consumption, and 30-day quality of life were also comparable, though rIPOM required less surgeon workload (p < 0.001), shorter operative time [107 (86-139) vs. 165 (129-212) min, p < 0.001], and resulted in fewer surgical site occurrences (0 vs. 8, p = 0.004). The total direct costs for rIPOM and eTEP were comparable [$8282 (6979-11835) vs. $8680 (7550-10282), p = 0.52] as the cost savings for eTEP attributable to mesh use [$442 (434-485) vs. $69 (62-76), p = < 0.0001] were offset by increased expenses for operative time [$669 (579-861) vs. $1075 (787-1367), p < 0.0001] and use of more robotic equipment [$760 (615-933) vs. $946 (798-1203), p = 0.001].
CONCLUSION
The avoidance of fixation in a robotic eTEP repair did not reveal a benefit in postoperative pain to offset the shorter operative time and surgeon workload offered by rIPOM.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36323978
doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09722-9
pii: 10.1007/s00464-022-09722-9
doi:
Substances chimiques
Analgesics, Opioid
0
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2143-2153Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB (2020) Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open 3:e1918911
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18911
pubmed: 31922557
pmcid: 6991252
Allison N, Tieu K, Snyder B, Pigazzi A, Wilson E (2012) Technical feasibility of robot-assisted ventral hernia repair. World J Surg 36:447–452
doi: 10.1007/s00268-011-1389-8
pubmed: 22194031
Belyansky I, Daes J, Radu VG, Balasubramanian R, Reza Zahiri H, Weltz AS, Sibia US, Park A, Novitsky Y (2018) A novel approach using the enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) technique for laparoscopic retromuscular hernia repair. Surg Endosc 32:1525–1532
doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5840-2
pubmed: 28916960
Stoppa RE (1989) The treatment of complicated groin and incisional hernias. World J Surg 13:545–554
doi: 10.1007/BF01658869
pubmed: 2683400
Eker HH, Hansson BM, Buunen M, Janssen IM, Pierik RE, Hop WC, Bonjer HJ, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2013) Laparoscopic vs. open incisional hernia repair: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 148:259–263
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.1466
pubmed: 23552714
Li J, Wang Y, Wu L (2022) The comparison of eTEP and IPOM in ventral and incisional hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 32:252–258
doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000001035
pubmed: 35034068
Jain M, Krishna A, Prakash O, Kumar S, Sagar R, Ramachandran R, Bansal VK (2022) Comparison of extended totally extra peritoneal (eTEP) vs. intra peritoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for management of primary and incisional hernia in terms of early outcomes and cost effectiveness—a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2022:1–9
Kumar N, Palanisamy NV, Parthasarathi R, Sabnis SC, Nayak SK, Palanivelu C (2021) A comparative prospective study of short-term outcomes of extended view totally extraperitoneal (e-TEP) repair versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal on lay mesh (IPOM) plus repair for ventral hernia. Surg Endosc 35:5072–5077
doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07990-x
pubmed: 32968915
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42:377–381
doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
pubmed: 18929686
Breivik EK, Bjornsson GA, Skovlund E (2000) A comparison of pain rating scales by sampling from clinical trial data. Clin J Pain 16:22–28
doi: 10.1097/00002508-200003000-00005
pubmed: 10741815
Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, Gershon R, Cook K, Reeve B, Ader D, Fries JF, Bruce B, Rose M, Group PC (2007) The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care 45:S3–S11
doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55
pubmed: 17443116
pmcid: 2829758
Krpata DM, Schmotzer BJ, Flocke S, Jin J, Blatnik JA, Ermlich B, Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ (2012) Design and initial implementation of HerQLes: a hernia-related quality-of-life survey to assess abdominal wall function. J Am Coll Surg 215:635–642
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.06.412
pubmed: 22867715
Zheng B, Jiang X, Tien G, Meneghetti A, Panton ON, Atkins MS (2012) Workload assessment of surgeons: correlation between NASA TLX and blinks. Surg Endosc 26:2746–2750
doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2268-6
pubmed: 22527300
Lowndes BR, Forsyth KL, Blocker RC, Dean PG, Truty MJ, Heller SF, Blackmon S, Hallbeck MS, Nelson H (2020) NASA-TLX assessment of surgeon workload variation across specialties. Ann Surg 271:686–692
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003058
pubmed: 30247331
Zolin SJ, Petro CC, Prabhu AS, Fafaj A, Thomas JD, Horne CM, Tastaldi L, Alkhatib H, Krpata DM, Rosenblatt S, Rosen MJ (2020) Registry-based randomized controlled trials: a new paradigm for surgical research. J Surg Res 255:428–435
doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.05.069
pubmed: 32619857
Olavarria OA, Bernardi K, Shah SK, Wilson TD, Wei S, Pedroza C, Avritscher EB, Loor MM, Ko TC, Kao LS, Liang MK (2020) Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: multicenter, blinded randomized controlled trial. BMJ 370:m2457
doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2457
pubmed: 32665218
pmcid: 7359869
Petro CC, Zolin S, Krpata D, Alkhatib H, Tu C, Rosen MJ, Prabhu AS (2021) Patient-reported outcomes of robotic vs. laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh: the PROVE-IT randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 156:22–29
pubmed: 33084881
Plymale MA, Davenport DL, Walsh-Blackmore S, Hess J, Griffiths WS, Plymale MC, Totten CF, Roth JS (2020) Costs and complications associated with infected mesh for ventral hernia repair. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 21:344–349
doi: 10.1089/sur.2019.183
pubmed: 31816266
Kokotovic D, Bisgaard T, Helgstrand F (2016) Long-term recurrence and complications associated with elective incisional hernia repair. JAMA 316:1575–1582
doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.15217
pubmed: 27750295
Halm JA, de Wall LL, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2007) Intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh hernia repair complicates subsequent abdominal surgery. World J Surg 31:423–429 (Discussion 430)
doi: 10.1007/s00268-006-0317-9
pubmed: 17180562
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 143:582–586
doi: 10.1001/archsurg.143.6.582
pubmed: 18559752
Zolin SJ, Fafaj A, Krpata DM (2020) Transversus abdominis release (TAR): What are the real indications and where is the limit? Hernia 24:333–340
doi: 10.1007/s10029-020-02150-5
pubmed: 32152808
Petro CC, Posielski NM, Raigani S, Criss CN, Orenstein SB, Novitsky YW (2015) Risk factors for wound morbidity after open retromuscular (sublay) hernia repair. Surgery 158:1658–1668
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.05.003
pubmed: 26100569
Albino FP, Patel KM, Nahabedian MY, Sosin M, Attinger CE, Bhanot P (2013) Does mesh location matter in abdominal wall reconstruction? A systematic review of the literature and a summary of recommendations. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:1295–1304
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a4c393
pubmed: 24165612
Warren J, Desai SS, Boswell ND, Hancock BH, Abbad H, Ewing JA, Carbonell AM, Cobb WS (2020) Safety and efficacy of synthetic mesh for ventral hernia repair in a contaminated field. J Am Coll Surg 230:405–413
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.12.008
pubmed: 31954819