Jonathan Douissard, Jeremy Meyer, Arnaud Dupuis, Andrea Peloso, Julie Mareschal, Christian Toso, Monika Hagen
{"title":"Robotic versus open primary ventral hernia repair: A randomized controlled trial (Robovent Trial)","authors":"Jonathan Douissard, Jeremy Meyer, Arnaud Dupuis, Andrea Peloso, Julie Mareschal, Christian Toso, Monika Hagen","doi":"10.1016/j.isjp.2020.03.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The objective of the present study is to compare the outcomes open PVHR and robotic PVHR.</p></div><div><h3>Methods/Design</h3><p>The present study will be a randomized single-blinded controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis comparing robotic PVHR to open PVHR in adult patients undergoing elective PVHR with a defect ranging between 1–5 cm. Patient refusing to participate, not able to give informed consent, with history of intra-abdominal surgery contraindicating a robotic surgical approach will be excluded. The intervention will consist in laparoscopic robotically assisted trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical PVHR with closure of fascial defect and non-adsorbable mesh reinforcement. The control will be open pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical hernia repair with closure of fascial defect and non-absorbable mesh reinforcement. The primary outcome will be the incidence of wound-related complication within 1 month. The secondary outcomes will be esthetic satisfaction, pain, pain-killers consumption, general complications, costs, operative time and early hernia recurrence.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Open PVHR is potentially associated to more wound-related complications, but has the advantages of cost-effectiveness, short operative time and totally extra-peritoneal repair. Laparoscopic PVHR has lower wound-related complications but implies placing the mesh in intra-peritoneal position, requires advanced laparoscopic skills, usually does not allow the closure of the defect, and can lead to excessive pain and pain-killers consumption. Robotic PVHR uses the same laparoscopic access as laparoscopic PVHR, but thanks to the extended range of motion given by the robotic system, allows defect closure, pre-peritoneal placement of the mesh and requires less technical skills.</p><p>In the present randomized controlled trial, we expect to show that robotic PVHR leads to better wound-related outcomes than open PVHR.</p></div><div><h3>Trial registration</h3><p>The present randomized controlled trial was registered into clinicaltrials.gov under registration number NCT04171921.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":42077,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Surgery Protocols","volume":"21 ","pages":"Pages 27-31"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.isjp.2020.03.004","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Surgery Protocols","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468357420300115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Background
The objective of the present study is to compare the outcomes open PVHR and robotic PVHR.
Methods/Design
The present study will be a randomized single-blinded controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis comparing robotic PVHR to open PVHR in adult patients undergoing elective PVHR with a defect ranging between 1–5 cm. Patient refusing to participate, not able to give informed consent, with history of intra-abdominal surgery contraindicating a robotic surgical approach will be excluded. The intervention will consist in laparoscopic robotically assisted trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical PVHR with closure of fascial defect and non-adsorbable mesh reinforcement. The control will be open pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical hernia repair with closure of fascial defect and non-absorbable mesh reinforcement. The primary outcome will be the incidence of wound-related complication within 1 month. The secondary outcomes will be esthetic satisfaction, pain, pain-killers consumption, general complications, costs, operative time and early hernia recurrence.
Discussion
Open PVHR is potentially associated to more wound-related complications, but has the advantages of cost-effectiveness, short operative time and totally extra-peritoneal repair. Laparoscopic PVHR has lower wound-related complications but implies placing the mesh in intra-peritoneal position, requires advanced laparoscopic skills, usually does not allow the closure of the defect, and can lead to excessive pain and pain-killers consumption. Robotic PVHR uses the same laparoscopic access as laparoscopic PVHR, but thanks to the extended range of motion given by the robotic system, allows defect closure, pre-peritoneal placement of the mesh and requires less technical skills.
In the present randomized controlled trial, we expect to show that robotic PVHR leads to better wound-related outcomes than open PVHR.
Trial registration
The present randomized controlled trial was registered into clinicaltrials.gov under registration number NCT04171921.
期刊介绍:
IJS Protocols is the first peer-reviewed, international, open access journal seeking to publish research protocols across across the full breadth of the surgical field. We are aim to provide rapid submission to decision times whilst maintaining a high quality peer-review process.