Open versus laparoscopic versus robotic inguinal hernia repair: A propensity-matched outcome analysis.

Abstract

Background: Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most common surgical procedures in the world. Each repair technique, open, laparoscopic, and robotic, has its advantages and advocates. Prior studies have compared 2 techniques, but there are little data comparing all 3 approaches with long-term follow-up.

Methods: Prospectively collected data for unilateral inguinal hernia repair between 2007 and 2022 were reviewed. Using more than 3,300 inguinal hernia repairs, a 1:1:1 propensity score match was performed for open inguinal hernia repair, laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, and robotic inguinal hernia repair based on patient age, sex, body mass index, and laterality. Standard descriptive and comparative statistics were performed. Data below is reported consistently as open inguinal hernia repair versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair versus robotic inguinal hernia repair.

Results: A total of 420 patients were matched, with 140 in each group. There was no difference in age, body mass index, or smoking status between groups. Open inguinal hernia repair had significantly more comorbidities (2.8 vs 2.6 vs 2.3; P = .035), including higher rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (5.0% vs 0.0% vs 1.4%; P = .013), cirrhosis (4.3% vs 0.0% vs 1.4%; P = .032), and congestive heart failure (5.0% vs 0.7% vs 0.7%; P = .023). American Society of Anesthesiologists scores differed significantly between groups (stage III and IV: 35.0% vs 20.0% vs 28.6%; P = .004). Open inguinal hernia repair were more often recurrent (48.6% vs 27.9% vs 17.1%; P < .001). The mean operative time was significantly different between groups (88.0 vs 86.1 vs 101.4 minutes; P < .001). There was no difference in wound infection (0.7% vs 0.0% vs 0.0%; P > .99), hematoma (1.4% vs 0.7% vs 1.4%; P > .99), seroma requiring intervention (2.9% vs 0.7% vs 0.7%; P = .377), or readmission (0.0% vs 2.1% vs 1.4%; P = .378). The rate of prolonged discomfort, requiring more than 2 pain medication refills, was similar between groups (2.9% vs 2.1% vs 2.1%; P = .903). Robotic inguinal hernia repair was significantly more expensive than laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair and open inguinal hernia repair ($10,005 ± $7,050 vs $17,155 ± $6,702 vs $31,173 ± $8,474; P < .001). With follow-up of at least 2.4 years in each group (3.6 vs 4.8 vs 2.4 years; P < .001), the recurrence rate was comparable (3.6% vs 0.7% vs 0.7%; P = .226).

Conclusions: All techniques are safe and effective in qualified hands. Open inguinal hernia repair was more commonly used in comorbid patients and recurrent hernias, but the techniques had comparable rates of wound complications, postoperative prolonged discomfort, and recurrence.