Comparing robotic to open retromuscular ventral hernia repair: a multi-center propensity-matched analysis.

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Daphne Remulla, Aldo Fafaj, Xinyan Zheng, Kimberly P Woo, William C Bennett, Alvaro Carvalho, Brianna L Slatnick, Diego L Lima, Kimberly S Miles, Benjamin T Miller, David M Krpata, Clayton C Petro, Ajita S Prabhu, Michael J Rosen, Lucas R Beffa
{"title":"Comparing robotic to open retromuscular ventral hernia repair: a multi-center propensity-matched analysis.","authors":"Daphne Remulla, Aldo Fafaj, Xinyan Zheng, Kimberly P Woo, William C Bennett, Alvaro Carvalho, Brianna L Slatnick, Diego L Lima, Kimberly S Miles, Benjamin T Miller, David M Krpata, Clayton C Petro, Ajita S Prabhu, Michael J Rosen, Lucas R Beffa","doi":"10.1007/s00464-025-11922-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair (r-RVHR) may benefit patients by converting an open surgery (o-RVHR) to a minimally invasive approach. Current comparative trials are limited by small patient cohorts and exploratory outcomes. This study compares short- and long-term outcomes of robotic versus open retromuscular ventral hernia repairs using a nationwide registry.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This propensity-matched analysis compared patients who underwent robotic or open ventral hernia repair with retromuscular mesh placement using Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative registry data (2014-2021). Groups were matched according to body mass index, Ventral Hernia Working Group classification, wound class, diabetes, smoking status, hernia width, and recurrent hernia repair. Primary outcome included hernia recurrence risk up to five years postoperatively evaluated two ways: 1) clinical/radiographic assessment only and 2) a pragmatic definition incorporating patient-reported bulging. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, wound morbidity, and patient-reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>1228 r-RVHR patients were matched to 1228 o-RVHR patients. Robotic RVHR was associated with longer operative times (p < 0.001), reduced length of stay (1 vs 3 days; p < 0.001), 30-day surgical site infection rates (1.7% vs 3.4%; p = 0.013), and surgical site occurrences (SSO) requiring procedural intervention (1.9% vs 3.6%; p = 0.011), but higher overall SSO (16.4% vs 11.0%; p < 0.001). Robotic RVHR showed similar two-year pragmatic recurrence rates but higher recurrence risk after three years (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15-1.85, p = 0.002) with no difference in clinical recurrence risk. Transversus abdominis release and surgeon experience were independently associated with reduced recurrence risk regardless of surgical approach. At five years, r-RVHR patients reported worse quality of life scores (78 vs 90; p = 0.044). Both groups experienced significant follow-up attrition over time.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic RVHR is associated with improved early post-operative outcomes yet may be associated with higher long-term pragmatic recurrence rates compared to open RVHR. These findings require investigation through prospective randomized trials with robust long-term follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":22174,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-025-11922-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair (r-RVHR) may benefit patients by converting an open surgery (o-RVHR) to a minimally invasive approach. Current comparative trials are limited by small patient cohorts and exploratory outcomes. This study compares short- and long-term outcomes of robotic versus open retromuscular ventral hernia repairs using a nationwide registry.

Methods: This propensity-matched analysis compared patients who underwent robotic or open ventral hernia repair with retromuscular mesh placement using Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative registry data (2014-2021). Groups were matched according to body mass index, Ventral Hernia Working Group classification, wound class, diabetes, smoking status, hernia width, and recurrent hernia repair. Primary outcome included hernia recurrence risk up to five years postoperatively evaluated two ways: 1) clinical/radiographic assessment only and 2) a pragmatic definition incorporating patient-reported bulging. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, wound morbidity, and patient-reported outcomes.

Results: 1228 r-RVHR patients were matched to 1228 o-RVHR patients. Robotic RVHR was associated with longer operative times (p < 0.001), reduced length of stay (1 vs 3 days; p < 0.001), 30-day surgical site infection rates (1.7% vs 3.4%; p = 0.013), and surgical site occurrences (SSO) requiring procedural intervention (1.9% vs 3.6%; p = 0.011), but higher overall SSO (16.4% vs 11.0%; p < 0.001). Robotic RVHR showed similar two-year pragmatic recurrence rates but higher recurrence risk after three years (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15-1.85, p = 0.002) with no difference in clinical recurrence risk. Transversus abdominis release and surgeon experience were independently associated with reduced recurrence risk regardless of surgical approach. At five years, r-RVHR patients reported worse quality of life scores (78 vs 90; p = 0.044). Both groups experienced significant follow-up attrition over time.

Conclusion: Robotic RVHR is associated with improved early post-operative outcomes yet may be associated with higher long-term pragmatic recurrence rates compared to open RVHR. These findings require investigation through prospective randomized trials with robust long-term follow-up.

比较机器人与开放式肌肉后腹疝修复:多中心倾向匹配分析。
机器人肌肉后腹疝修补术(r-RVHR)可以通过将开放手术(o-RVHR)转化为微创方法使患者受益。目前的比较试验受限于小患者队列和探索性结果。本研究在全国范围内比较了机器人与开放式肌肉后腹疝修复的短期和长期结果。方法:本倾向匹配分析使用腹部核心健康质量协作注册数据(2014-2021)比较了接受机器人或开放式腹疝修补术和肌肉后网置入的患者。各组根据体重指数、腹疝工作组分类、伤口分类、糖尿病、吸烟状况、疝宽度和复发疝修复情况进行匹配。主要结局包括术后5年内疝气复发风险的两种评估方式:1)仅临床/影像学评估;2)结合患者报告的疝出的实用定义。次要结局包括住院时间、伤口发病率和患者报告的结局。结果:1228例r-RVHR患者与1228例o-RVHR患者匹配。结论:与开放式RVHR相比,机器人RVHR与术后早期预后改善相关,但可能与更高的长期实际复发率相关。这些发现需要通过前瞻性随机试验进行调查,并进行长期随访。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
12.90%
发文量
890
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Uniquely positioned at the interface between various medical and surgical disciplines, Surgical Endoscopy serves as a focal point for the international surgical community to exchange information on practice, theory, and research. Topics covered in the journal include: -Surgical aspects of: Interventional endoscopy, Ultrasound, Other techniques in the fields of gastroenterology, obstetrics, gynecology, and urology, -Gastroenterologic surgery -Thoracic surgery -Traumatic surgery -Orthopedic surgery -Pediatric surgery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信