Scholarlink

Background <p>Robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (r-TAPP) inguinal hernia repair is increasingly adopted, yet its short-term advantages over conventional laparoscopy remain uncertain.</p> Methods <p>This systematic review was reported according to PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL until September 25th, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing r-TAPP and laparoscopic TAPP were eligible. Primary outcomes were operative time and postoperative complications. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis, and study quality was assessed using the Cochrane RoB II tool.</p> Results <p>Three RCTs comprising 300 patients were analyzed. Robotic repair was associated with a longer operative time, though this did not reach statistical significance (MD + 17.6&#xa0;min; 95% CI − 20.7 to + 55.9; <i>p</i> = 0.37). Complication rates were not significantly different (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.34–2.03; <i>p</i> = 0.68). Readmissions were rare and comparable between groups (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.09–5.58; <i>p</i> = 0.74).</p> Conclusions <p>Robotic TAPP is safe and effective; however, clear superiority over laparoscopy has not been established. Large-scale, multicenter RCTs with standardized protocols, long-term follow-up, and cost-effectiveness analyses are needed to clarify the role of robotics in inguinal hernia repair.</p> Prospero registry <p>Registration number: CRD420251157847</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

Robotic vs. laparoscopic TAPP: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on short-term outcomes

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月12日

查看全文
  • Francesco Brucchi,
  • Richard Sassun,
  • Sara Lauricella,
  • Roberto Cirocchi,
  • Gianfranco Parati,
  • Gianlorenzo Dionigi,
  • Filip Muysoms

摘要

Background

Robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (r-TAPP) inguinal hernia repair is increasingly adopted, yet its short-term advantages over conventional laparoscopy remain uncertain.

Methods

This systematic review was reported according to PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL until September 25th, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing r-TAPP and laparoscopic TAPP were eligible. Primary outcomes were operative time and postoperative complications. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis, and study quality was assessed using the Cochrane RoB II tool.

Results

Three RCTs comprising 300 patients were analyzed. Robotic repair was associated with a longer operative time, though this did not reach statistical significance (MD + 17.6 min; 95% CI − 20.7 to + 55.9; p = 0.37). Complication rates were not significantly different (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.34–2.03; p = 0.68). Readmissions were rare and comparable between groups (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.09–5.58; p = 0.74).

Conclusions

Robotic TAPP is safe and effective; however, clear superiority over laparoscopy has not been established. Large-scale, multicenter RCTs with standardized protocols, long-term follow-up, and cost-effectiveness analyses are needed to clarify the role of robotics in inguinal hernia repair.

Prospero registry

Registration number: CRD420251157847