Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair.

Background: This study aimed to assess the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair in Indian real-world settings.

Methods: This is a single-center, prospective, nonrandomized, comparative study. Consecutive patients who were 18 years of age or older, and provided informed consent were included in the study between June 2023 and May 2024.

Results: In all, 83 patients were prospectively enrolled in this study: 24 patients were in the robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) group and 59 patients were in the laparoscopic surgery (LS) group. The baseline characteristics of the study cohorts were comparable. The mean total operating time for the RAS group was significantly longer than the LS group (89.83 ± 24.31 vs 67.71 ± 18.34 minutes, P = .0000). For the bilateral hernias, the RAS group's total operating time was significantly longer than that of the LS group; however, for the unilateral hernias, there was no discernible difference. Urine retention was the only early complication in 8.33% and 16.95% of patients, respectively, in the RAS and LS groups. The duration of hospital stay did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (P = .395). The pain scores of the RAS group were significantly lower on postoperative days 1, 4, and 7. Patients in the RAS group scored considerably higher on the quality of life (QoL) scale 1 month after surgery than patients in the LS group.

Conclusion: This study reports encouraging preliminary clinical outcomes of RAS inguinal hernia repairs in Indian settings, in terms of postoperative pain and QoL.