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.
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.
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.
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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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
Campanelli G (2019) Primary ventral hernia: where are we at? Hernia 23(5):829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-02058-9
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
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
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
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
Petro CC, Novitsky YW (2016) Classification of hernias. In: Novitsky YW (ed) Hernia surgery. Springer, Switzerland, pp 15–21
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
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
- Robotic ventral hernia repair
- Ventral hernia