Search

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text Objective: To describe the outcomes of RVHR with varying prosthetic reinforcement techniques. Summary of Background Data: As a recent addition to minimally invasive hernia repair, more data is needed to establish the long-term benefits of RVHR and to identify potential predictors of adverse outcomes. Methods: Patients who underwent RVHR over a 7-year period were evaluated. Robotic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (rIPOM), transabdominal preperitoneal (rTAPP), Rives-Stoppa (rRS), and transversus abdominis release (rTAR) techniques were compared. The main outcomes were 90-day FFC, and 5-year FFR, depicted through Kaplan-Meier curves stratified by repair type and date. Results: A total of 644 RVHRs were analyzed; 197 rIPOM, 156 rTAPP, 153 rRS, and 138 rTAR. There was a gradual transition from intraperitoneal to extraperitoneal mesh placement across the study period. Although rTAPP had the highest 90-day FFC (89.5%) it also had the lowest 5-year FFR (93.3%). Conversely, although rTAR demonstrated the lowest FFC (71%), it had the highest FFR (100%). Coronary artery disease, lysis of adhesions, incisional hernia, and skin-to-skin time (10 minutes. increment) were significant predictors of 90-day complications. Incisional hernia was the sole predictor of 5-year recurrence. Conclusions: This study provides an in-depth perspective of the largest series of RVHR. Based on this experience, rTAPP is no longer recommended due to its limited applicability and high recurrence rate. Both rIPOM and rRS offer encouraging short- and long-term outcomes, while rTAR is associated with the highest perioperative morbidity. Longer follow-up is needed to assess rTAR durability, despite a promising recurrence profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robotic Rives-Stoppa ventral hernia repair (rRS-VHR) is a minimally invasive technique that incorporates extraperitoneal mesh placement, using either transabdominal or totally extraperitoneal access. An understanding of its learning curve and technical challenges may guide and encourage its adoption. We aim at evaluating the rRS-VHR learning curve based on operative times while accounting for adverse outcomes. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing rRS repair for centrally located ventral and incisional hernias. A single surgeon operative time-based cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis learning curve was created, and a composite outcome was used for risk-adjusted CUSUM (RA-CUSUM). Results: Eighty-one patients undergoing rRS-VHR were included. A learning curve was created by using skin-to-skin times. Accordingly, patients were grouped into three phases. The mean skin-to-skin time was 72.2 minutes, and there was a significant decrease in skin-to-skin times throughout the learning curve (Phase-I: 86.4 minutes versus Phase-III: 63.8 minutes; P = .001), with a gradual decrease after 29 cases. Eleven patients experienced adverse composite outcomes, which were used to create a RA-CUSUM graph. Results showed the highest adverse outcome rates in Phase-II, with a gradual decrease in risk-adjusted operative times after 51 cases. Conclusions: Consistently decreasing operative times and adverse outcome rates in rRS-VHR was observed after the completion of 29 and 51 cases, respectively. Future studies that provide group learning curves for this procedure can deliver more generalizable results in terms of its performance rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Minimally invasive abdominal wall reconstruction, utilizing transversus abdominis release (TAR), has been described and shown to be beneficial for ventral hernia repair (VHR). Limited literature is available surrounding the hybrid robotic TAR (h-rTAR) approach, which combines robotic dissection and component separation with open fascial defect closure and mesh deployment. In this study, we describe our h-rTAR technique and present our center's postoperative and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: h-rTAR VHRs performed between 2013 and 2018 were examined. The h-rTAR technique was described. Patient characteristics and operative variables were analyzed. Perioperative results were presented according to European Hernia Society (EHS) classifications. Pre- and post-operative hernia-specific quality-of-life (QoL) assessments were conducted. Results: Twenty patients who underwent an h-rTAR were included in this study. All hernias were incisional. A bilateral TAR needed in 90% of patients. The average hospital stay was 1.8 days. Two patients experienced medical complications and 5 patients experienced surgical site events. None of the patients experienced a hernia recurrence throughout a mean postoperative follow-up period of 319 days. PROs showed improvement in all domains, especially cosmetic. Conclusion: The h-rTAR technique combines the benefits of robotic and open techniques when used for large incisional VHR with improvement in patient-reported QoL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Retromuscular mesh placement positioning utilizing the robotic platform can be performed using either a transabdominal or an extraperitoneal approach. The aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes of robotic transabdominal access retromuscular (rTA-RM) repair and robotic totally extraperitoneal access retromuscular (rTEP-RM) repair for ventral hernias Methods: Patients who underwent robotic retromuscular repair between February 2013–October 2019 were included in the study. A one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to obtain two balanced groups. A comparative analysis was performed in terms of perioperative and early post-operative outcomes. Results: A total of 214 patients were included for PSM analysis. 82 patients were allocated into each study group. Operative times were longer in rTA-RM group. Adhesiolysis was more frequently required in the rTA-RM group. Intra-operative complications occurred more frequently in patients who underwent rTA-RM repair (p = 0.120; 4.9% in rTA-RM vs. 0% in rTEP-RM). The rate of major complications during the first 90 days did not differ between groups (p = 0.277; 7.3% vs. 2.4%, respectively). The proportion of patients with minor perioperative complications was statistically higher in the rTA-RM group than the rTEP-RM group (p = 0.003; 30.5% vs. 11%, respectively). Overall rate of surgical site events was higher in the rTA-RM group than the rTEP-RM group (p = 0.049; 17.1% vs. 6.1%, respectively). Seroma frequency was higher after rTA-RM repair (p = 0.047; 13.4% vs. 3.7%). Conclusion: Our data suggest that rTEP-RM repair was associated with shorter surgery duration and improved early post-operative outcomes in comparison with rTA-RM repair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]