Abstract:Purpose: With robotic surgical devices, an innovative tool has stepped into the arena of minimally invasive hernia surgery. It combines the advantages of open (low recurrence rates and ability to perform complex procedure such as transverse abdominis release) and laparoscopic surgery (low rate of wound and mesh infections, less pain). However, a superiority to standard minimally invasive procedures has not yet been proven. We present our first experiences of robotic mesh repair of incisional hernias and a comparison of our results with open and minimally invasive sublay techniques. Methods: A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent robotic-assisted mesh repair (RAHR) for incisional hernia between April and November 2022 (RAHR group) and patients who underwent open sublay (Sublay group) or eMILOS hernia repair (eMILOS group) between January 2018 and November 2022 was carried out. Patients in the RAHR group were matched 1:2 to patients in the Sublay group by propensity score matching. Patient demographics, preoperative hernia characteristics and cause of hernia, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis of only midline hernia was performed. Results: A total of 21 patients received robotic-assisted incisional hernia repair. Procedures performed included robotic retro-muscular hernia repair (r-RMHR, 76%), with transverse abdominis release in 56% of the cases. In one patient, r-RHMR was combined with robotic inguinal hernia repair. Two patients (10%) were operated with total extraperitoneal technique (eTEP). Robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair (r-TAPP) was performed in three patients (14%). Median (range) operating time in the RAHR group was significantly longer than in the sublay and eMILOS group (291 (122-311) vs. 109.5 (48-270) min vs. 123 (100-192) min, respectively, p < 0.001). The meshes applied in the RAHR group were significantly compared to the sublay (mean (SD) 529 ± 311 cm2 vs. 356 ± 231, p = 0.037), but without a difference compared to the eMILOS group (mean (SD) 596 ± 266 cm2). Median (range) length of hospital stay in the RAHR group was significantly shorter compared to the Sublay group (3 (2-7) vs. 5 (1-9) days, p = 0.032), but not significantly different to the eMILOS group. In short term follow-up, no hernia recurrence was observed in the RAHR and eMILOS group, with 9% in the Sublay group. The subgroup analysis of midline hernia revealed very similar results. Conclusion: Our data show a promising outcome after robotic-assisted incisional hernia repair, but no superiority compared to the eMILOS technique. However, RAHR is a promising technique especially for complex hernia in patients with relevant risk factors, especially immunosuppression. Longer follow-up times are needed to accurately assess recurrence rates, and large prospective trials are needed to show superiority of robotic compared to standard open and minimally invasive hernia repair.

Robotic Repair of a Paraesophageal Hernia After an Open Nissen Fundoplication: Case Presentation and Clinical Discussion

Robotic Repair: An Alternative Technique for Rectus Diastasis and Abdominal Bulge Following DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction

Comparisons of abdominal wall reconstruction for ventral hernia repairs, open versus robotic

Perioperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a NSQIP analysis

Robotics vs Laparoscopy in Foregut Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Analyzing Hiatal Hernia Repair and Heller Myotomy

Laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hiatus hernia in infants and children: a review of 66 cases

Robotic parastomal hernia repair: A single-center cohort study

Robotic approach for retromuscular ventral hernia repair may be associated with improved wound morbidity in high-risk patients: a propensity score analysis

A comparison between robotic-assisted and open approaches for large ventral hernia repair-a multicenter analysis of 30 days outcomes using the ACHQC database

First report of robotic retromuscular incisional hernia repair with Hugo RasTM surgical system

One-step totally robotic Hartmann reversal and complex abdominal wall reconstruction with bilateral posterior component separation: a technical note

Robotic-assisted surgery for lateral ventral hernias - experience of robot-assisted methods for retromuscular and preperitoneal abdominal wall reconstruction

Early outcomes of robotic modified retromuscular Sugarbaker technique for end colostomy parastomal hernia repair

Robotics can decrease the rate of post-operative ventral hernia: a single centre retrospective cohort study

Long-term patient reported outcomes after robotic, laparoscopic, and open ventral hernia repair

Retrospective cost analysis of robotic and laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery and paraesophageal hernia repair

Implementation of the Versius Surgical System in Complex Abdominal Wall Repair: First Reported Case of an Robotic ETEP/TAR Procedure

Incarcerated Epiploic Appendix in a Spigelian Hernia Treated by Robotic-Assisted Surgery

Robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair demonstrates favorable short-term outcomes compared to laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair

Robotic-assisted repair of colovesical anastomosis after Hartmann's reversal procedure

Robotic-assisted repair of incisional hernia-early experiences of a university robotic hernia program and comparison with open and minimally invasive sublay technique (eMILOS)