Comparative perioperative outcomes of single-port laparoscopic ArtiSential versus da Vinci SP platform for totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a multi-institutional, propensity score-matched analysis in Korea.

In Kyeong Kim, Moonjin Kim, Ji-Yeon Moon, Ri Na Yoo, Jumyeong Song, Chaedong Lim, Choon Sik Chung, Gwan Cheol Lee, Tae Gyu Kim, Young Sun Choi, Dong Geun Lee, Chul Seung Lee
{"title":"Comparative perioperative outcomes of single-port laparoscopic ArtiSential versus da Vinci SP platform for totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a multi-institutional, propensity score-matched analysis in Korea.","authors":"In Kyeong Kim, Moonjin Kim, Ji-Yeon Moon, Ri Na Yoo, Jumyeong Song, Chaedong Lim, Choon Sik Chung, Gwan Cheol Lee, Tae Gyu Kim, Young Sun Choi, Dong Geun Lee, Chul Seung Lee","doi":"10.7602/jmis.2026.29.1.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare perioperative and postoperative outcomes of single-port laparoscopic articulated instrument-assisted versus da Vinci SP-assisted totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair using a propensity score-matched multi-institutional cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between April 2022 and July 2025, 221 patients underwent TEP unilateral inguinal hernia repair at four institutions. Among them, 33 patients underwent da Vinci SP-assisted repair (Intuitive Surgical) and 188 underwent single-port laparoscopy using the articulated instrument, ArtiSential (LivsMed). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio based on demographic and clinical variables, resulting in 30 matched patients in each group. Perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups. Operative time was significantly longer in the da Vinci SP group than in the ArtiSential group (median [interquartile range], 82.0 [67.5-105.0] vs. 35.0 [28.5-47.5] minutes; <i>p</i> < 0.001). No open conversions occurred, and conversions to transabdominal preperitoneal repair were rare and comparable. Mesh size selection differed significantly, with smaller meshes more frequently used in the da Vinci SP group (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Postoperative outcomes, including length of hospital stay, overall complication rates, chronic pain, and recurrence, were similar between the groups. No major complications, readmissions, or reoperations were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Articulated instrument-assisted TEP inguinal hernia repair demonstrated a significantly shorter operative time than da Vinci SP-assisted repair, while perioperative safety and postoperative outcomes were comparable.</p>","PeriodicalId":73832,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive surgery","volume":"29 1","pages":"3-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13006757/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7602/jmis.2026.29.1.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare perioperative and postoperative outcomes of single-port laparoscopic articulated instrument-assisted versus da Vinci SP-assisted totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair using a propensity score-matched multi-institutional cohort.

Methods: Between April 2022 and July 2025, 221 patients underwent TEP unilateral inguinal hernia repair at four institutions. Among them, 33 patients underwent da Vinci SP-assisted repair (Intuitive Surgical) and 188 underwent single-port laparoscopy using the articulated instrument, ArtiSential (LivsMed). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio based on demographic and clinical variables, resulting in 30 matched patients in each group. Perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications were analyzed.

Results: After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups. Operative time was significantly longer in the da Vinci SP group than in the ArtiSential group (median [interquartile range], 82.0 [67.5-105.0] vs. 35.0 [28.5-47.5] minutes; p < 0.001). No open conversions occurred, and conversions to transabdominal preperitoneal repair were rare and comparable. Mesh size selection differed significantly, with smaller meshes more frequently used in the da Vinci SP group (p < 0.001). Postoperative outcomes, including length of hospital stay, overall complication rates, chronic pain, and recurrence, were similar between the groups. No major complications, readmissions, or reoperations were observed.

Conclusion: Articulated instrument-assisted TEP inguinal hernia repair demonstrated a significantly shorter operative time than da Vinci SP-assisted repair, while perioperative safety and postoperative outcomes were comparable.

单孔腹腔镜人工与达芬奇SP平台完全腹股沟外疝修补术围手术期效果的比较:韩国一项多机构、倾向评分匹配分析。
目的:本研究旨在通过倾向评分匹配的多机构队列,比较单孔腹腔镜关节式器械辅助与达芬奇sp辅助的全腹股沟外(TEP)疝修补术的围术期和术后结果。方法:2022年4月至2025年7月,221例患者在4家医院行TEP单侧腹股沟疝修补术。其中,33例患者采用达芬奇sp辅助修复(Intuitive Surgical), 188例患者采用关节式器械ArtiSential (LivsMed)进行单孔腹腔镜检查。根据人口学和临床变量按1:1的比例进行倾向评分匹配,每组匹配30例患者。分析围手术期结局及术后并发症。结果:配对后,各组间基线特征平衡良好。da Vinci SP组的手术时间明显长于ArtiSential组(中位数[四分位数范围],82.0 [67.5-105.0]vs. 35.0[28.5-47.5]分钟,p < 0.001)。没有发生开放性转换,转换到经腹腹膜前修复是罕见的,具有可比性。网格大小的选择有显著差异,在达芬奇SP组中更频繁地使用较小的网格(p < 0.001)。术后结果,包括住院时间、总并发症发生率、慢性疼痛和复发率,两组之间相似。无重大并发症、再入院或再手术。结论:关节式器械辅助TEP腹股沟疝修补术的手术时间明显短于da Vinci sp辅助修补术,且围手术期安全性和术后效果相当。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
小红书