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.

Comparing procedural costs and early clinical outcomes of robotic extended totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) with intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for midline ventral hernias

Minimally invasive intraperitoneal onlay mesh plus (IPOM +) repair versus enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (e-TEP) repair for ventral hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical outcomes and costs of retromuscular and intraperitoneal onlay mesh techniques in robotic incisional hernia repair

Posterior mesh inguinal hernia repairs: a propensity score matched analysis of laparoscopic and robotic versus open approaches

Clinical outcomes and cost of robotic ventral hernia repair: systematic review

Prospective randomized study comparing mesh displacement in enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal versus totally extraperitoneal laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair without mesh fixation

A Comparative Study on Outcomes and Quality of Life Changes Following Ventral Transabdominal Preperitoneal (Ventral-TAPP) and Laparoscopic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh (IPOM)-Plus Repair for Ventral Hernia

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

Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing partially absorbable lightweight mesh and multifilament polyester anatomical mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair

Comparing Laparoscopic Total Extraperitoneal and Lichtenstein Mesh Repair for Inguinal Hernias: A Focus on Patient Outcomes

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

Endoscopic enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal prosthetic (eTEP) versus open Rives–Stoppa repair as a treatment of midline abdominal wall hernias with rectus diastasis: comparison of postoperative pain and length of hospital stay in a single-centre surgical cohort

Comparison of slit mesh versus nonslit mesh in laparoscopic extraperitoneal hernia repair

A comparative study between condensed polytetrafluoroethylene hernia mesh versus other composite meshes in Endo-laparoscopic ventral hernia repair

Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair

Initial experience with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and early discharge protocols after robotic extended totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) hernia surgery

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

Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair

Laparoscopic extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair versus open mesh repair: a prospective randomized controlled trial

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

The pros and cons of suturing the ventral hernia defect using the intraperitoneal onlay mesh technique