A comparison of robotic mesh repair techniques for primary uncomplicated midline ventral hernias and analysis of risk factors associated with postoperative complications

Abstract

Purpose

We aim to compare short-term outcomes of robotic intraperitoneal onlay (rIPOM), transabdominal preperitoneal (rTAPP) and retromuscular (rRM) repair for uncomplicated midline primary ventral hernias (PVH) and determine risk factors associated with postoperative complications.

Methods

The three groups were compared in terms of pre-, intra-, and post-operative variables. Postoperative complications were assessed using previously validated classifications. Univariate analyses were conducted to determine which variables influence postoperative complications (up to 90 days), followed by a multivariate regression analysis revealing statistically important risk factors.

Results

A total of 269 patients who underwent robotic PVH repair patients were grouped as rIPOM (n = 90), rTAPP (n = 108), and rRM (n = 71). rRM repair allowed for the use of larger-sized meshes for larger defects; however, it was associated with higher-grade complications. rTAPP repair resulted in the lowest morbidity and offered the highest mesh-to-defect ratio for smaller-sized hernias. Operative time for the rRM group was longer. The rIPOM group had a higher morbidity, likely due to higher frequency of minor complications, as compared to rTAPP and rRM groups. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that coronary artery disease, absence of defect closure, intraperitoneally placed mesh, and skin-to-skin time (minutes) were significantly associated with postoperative complications.

Conclusion

Robotic PVHR contributes multiple techniques to a surgeon’s armamentarium, such as IPOM, TAPP, and RM mesh placements. Patient characteristics as well as the potential consequences of each technique need to be taken into consideration when deciding the appropriate approach for the repair of primary uncomplicated midline ventral hernias.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Sauerland S, Walgenbach M, Habermalz B, Seiler CM, Miserez M (2011) Laparoscopic versus open surgical techniques for ventral or incisional hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:007781. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007781.pub2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Campanelli G (2019) Primary ventral hernia: where are we at? Hernia 23(5):829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-02058-9

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Tsui C, Klein R, Garabrant M (2013) Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy. Surg Endosc 27(7):2253–2257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2973-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Donkor C, Gonzalez A, Gallas MR, Helbig M, Weinstein C, Rodriguez J (2017) Current perspectives in robotic hernia repair. Robot Surg 4:57–67. https://doi.org/10.2147/RSRR.S101809

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Gokcal F, Morrison S, Kudsi OY (2019) Short-term comparison between preperitoneal and intraperitoneal onlay mesh placement in robotic ventral hernia repair. Hernia 23(5):957–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-01946-4

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Petro CC, Novitsky YW (2016) Classification of hernias. In: Novitsky YW (ed) Hernia surgery. Springer, Switzerland, pp 15–21

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bittner JG, Alrefai S, Vy M, Mabe M, Del Prado PAR, Clingempeel NL (2018) Comparative analysis of open and robotic transversus abdominis release for ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 32(2):727–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5729-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J, Puhan MA, Clavien PA (2013) The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 258(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318296c732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kudsi OY, Gokcal F, Chang K (2020) Robotic intraperitoneal onlay versus totally extraperitoneal (TEP) retromuscular mesh ventral hernia repair: a propensity score matching analysis of short-term outcomes. Am J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.01.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Parker SG, Wood CPJ, Sanders DL, Windsor ACJ (2017) Nomenclature in abdominal wall hernias: is it time for consensus? World J Surg 41(10):2488–2491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4037-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Holihan JL, Nguyen DH, Nguyen MT, Mo J, Kao LS, Liang MK (2016) Mesh location in open ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. World J Surg 40(1):89–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-3252-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Timmermans L, de Goede B, van Dijk SM, Kleinrensink GJ, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2014) Meta-analysis of sublay versus onlay mesh repair in incisional hernia surgery. Am J Surg 207(6):980–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.08.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Smith MJ (2017) Hernia surgeons embrace sublay repairs, but loyalty to IPOM remains. General surgery news, The Independent Monthly Newspaper for General Surgeons. https://www.generalsurgerynews.com/Article/PrintArticle?articleID=39071

  15. 15.

    Walker PA, May AC, Mo J, Cherla DV, Santillan MR, Kim S, Ryan H, Shah SK, Wilson EB, Tsuda S (2018) Multicenter review of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: is there a role for robotics? Surg Endosc 32(4):1901–1905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5882-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Gonzalez AM, Romero RJ, Seetharamaiah R, Gallas M, Lamoureux J, Rabaza JR (2015) Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with primary closure versus no primary closure of the defect: potential benefits of the robotic technology. Int J Med Robot 11(2):120–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Bittner R, Bain K, Bansal VK, Berrevoet F, Bingener-Casey J, Chen D, Chen J, Chowbey P, Dietz UA, de Beaux A, Ferzli G, Fortelny R, Hoffmann H, Iskander M, Ji Z, Jorgensen LN, Khullar R, Kirchhoff P, Kockerling F, Kukleta J, LeBlanc K, Li J, Lomanto D, Mayer F, Meytes V, Misra M, Morales-Conde S, Niebuhr H, Radvinsky D, Ramshaw B, Ranev D, Reinpold W, Sharma A, Schrittwieser R, Stechemesser B, Sutedja B, Tang J, Warren J, Weyhe D, Wiegering A, Woeste G, Yao Q (2019) Update of guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)): part B. Surg Endosc 33(11):3511–3549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06908-6

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bittner R, Bain K, Bansal VK, Berrevoet F, Bingener-Casey J, Chen D, Chen J, Chowbey P, Dietz UA, de Beaux A, Ferzli G, Fortelny R, Hoffmann H, Iskander M, Ji Z, Jorgensen LN, Khullar R, Kirchhoff P, Kockerling F, Kukleta J, LeBlanc K, Li J, Lomanto D, Mayer F, Meytes V, Misra M, Morales-Conde S, Niebuhr H, Radvinsky D, Ramshaw B, Ranev D, Reinpold W, Sharma A, Schrittwieser R, Stechemesser B, Sutedja B, Tang J, Warren J, Weyhe D, Wiegering A, Woeste G, Yao Q (2019) Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))-part A. Surg Endosc 33(10):3069–3139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06907-7

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Liang MK, Holihan JL, Itani K, Alawadi ZM, Gonzalez JR, Askenasy EP, Ballecer C, Chong HS, Goldblatt MI, Greenberg JA, Harvin JA, Keith JN, Martindale RG, Orenstein S, Richmond B, Roth JS, Szotek P, Towfigh S, Tsuda S, Vaziri K, Berger DH (2017) Ventral hernia management: expert consensus guided by systematic review. Ann Surg 265(1):80–89. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001701

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Tulloh B, de Beaux A (2016) Defects and donuts: the importance of the mesh: defect area ratio. Hernia 20(6):893–895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-016-1524-4

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Hauters P, Desmet J, Gherardi D, Dewaele S, Poilvache H, Malvaux P (2017) Assessment of predictive factors for recurrence in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair using a bridging technique. Surg Endosc 31(9):3656–3663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5401-0

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Prasad P, Tantia O, Patle NM, Khanna S, Sen B (2011) Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a comparative study of transabdominal preperitoneal versus intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 21(6):477–483. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2010.0572

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Warren JA, Cobb WS, Ewing JA, Carbonell AM (2017) Standard laparoscopic versus robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 31(1):324–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4975-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to O. Y. Kudsi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Drs. Karen Chang, Naseem Bou-Ayash, and Fahri Gokcal have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Dr. Omar Yusef Kudsi has received a teaching course and/or consultancy fees from Intuitive Surgical, Bard-Davol and W. L. Gore outside the submitted work.

Ethical approval

The database used for this study approved by the Institutional Review Board.

Human and animal rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kudsi, O.Y., Chang, K., Bou-Ayash, N. et al. A comparison of robotic mesh repair techniques for primary uncomplicated midline ventral hernias and analysis of risk factors associated with postoperative complications. Hernia 25, 51–59 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02199-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Robotic ventral hernia repair
  • Ventral hernia
  • IPOM
  • TAPP
  • Retromuscular