Scholarlink

Introduction <p>Robotic surgery for ventral hernia repair (VHR) is gaining attention for its potential advantages over laparoscopic and open techniques. This approach combines the advantages of minimally invasive surgery with the ability to perform technically challenging procedures, often required in open surgery but difficult with conventional laparoscopy. We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of robotic VHR compared to other surgical approaches, focusing on postoperative complications, operative time, and costs.</p> Material and methods <p>A systematic review with meta-analysis were conducted, including 67 studies from January 2010 to May 2023 on Robotic VHR compared with other techniques. Primary outcome was 30-days postoperative complications; SSI, SSO, seroma, mortality, recurrence, length of hospital stay, operative time and costs were analysed as secondary outcomes.</p> Results <p>Robotic surgery was associated with longer operative times compared to both laparoscopic (MD 64.67&#xa0;min; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and open repairs (MD 69.69&#xa0;min; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). However, it resulted, compared to open surgery, in fewer SSIs (OR 0.62; p 0.05), mortality (OR 0.44; p 0.04) and shorter hospital stay (MD -3.77 days; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). No differences were found in overall complications or length of stay between robotic and laparoscopic approaches but higher costs and longer operative times were reported in robotic VHR.</p> Conclusions <p>Based on the currently available low-quality evidence, robotic VHR appears to offer limited advantages compared to laparoscopic techniques. However, when compared to open approaches, robotic VHR may demonstrate reduced postoperative complications and shorter hospital stays even if an higher rate of seroma formation was retrieved probably related to technical details. Nevertheless, longer operative times and higher costs remain significant limitations. Further high-quality comparative studies are warranted to assess long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Systematic review and meta-analysis on robotic assisted ventral hernia repair: the ROVER review

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月18日

查看全文
  • Sara Capoccia Giovannini,
  • Maaike Vierstraete,
  • M. Frascio,
  • G. Camerini,
  • F. Muysoms,
  • C. Stabilini

摘要

Introduction

Robotic surgery for ventral hernia repair (VHR) is gaining attention for its potential advantages over laparoscopic and open techniques. This approach combines the advantages of minimally invasive surgery with the ability to perform technically challenging procedures, often required in open surgery but difficult with conventional laparoscopy. We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of robotic VHR compared to other surgical approaches, focusing on postoperative complications, operative time, and costs.

Material and methods

A systematic review with meta-analysis were conducted, including 67 studies from January 2010 to May 2023 on Robotic VHR compared with other techniques. Primary outcome was 30-days postoperative complications; SSI, SSO, seroma, mortality, recurrence, length of hospital stay, operative time and costs were analysed as secondary outcomes.

Results

Robotic surgery was associated with longer operative times compared to both laparoscopic (MD 64.67 min; p < 0.001) and open repairs (MD 69.69 min; p < 0.001). However, it resulted, compared to open surgery, in fewer SSIs (OR 0.62; p 0.05), mortality (OR 0.44; p 0.04) and shorter hospital stay (MD -3.77 days; p < 0.001). No differences were found in overall complications or length of stay between robotic and laparoscopic approaches but higher costs and longer operative times were reported in robotic VHR.

Conclusions

Based on the currently available low-quality evidence, robotic VHR appears to offer limited advantages compared to laparoscopic techniques. However, when compared to open approaches, robotic VHR may demonstrate reduced postoperative complications and shorter hospital stays even if an higher rate of seroma formation was retrieved probably related to technical details. Nevertheless, longer operative times and higher costs remain significant limitations. Further high-quality comparative studies are warranted to assess long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness.