Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27450207›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017

Outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic repair of small-sized ventral hernias.

Y Julia Chen, Desmond Huynh, Scott Nguyen, Edward Chin, Celia Divino, Linda Zhang

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Robot-assisted abdominal wall surgery: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019
    Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Y Julia ChenDepartment of Surgery, Mount Sinai Medical Center, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1259, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Desmond HuynhDepartment of Surgery, Mount Sinai Medical Center, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1259, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Scott NguyenDepartment of Surgery, Mount Sinai Medical Center, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1259, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Edward ChinDepartment of Surgery, Mount Sinai Medical Center, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1259, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Celia DivinoDepartment of Surgery, Mount Sinai Medical Center, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1259, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Linda ZhangDepartment of Surgery, Mount Sinai Medical Center, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1259, New York, NY, 10029, USA. Linda.Zhang@mountsinai.org.ORCID 0000-0001-6727-4784

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe aim of the study is to investigate the outcomes of the da Vinci robot-assisted laparoscopic hernia repair of small-sized ventral hernias with circumferential suturing of the mesh compared to the traditional laparoscopic repair with trans-fascial suturing.

methodsA retrospective review was conducted of all robot-assisted umbilical, epigastric and incisional hernia repairs performed at our institution between 2013 and 2015 compared to laparoscopic umbilical or epigastric hernia repairs. Patient characteristics, operative details and postoperative complications were collected and analyzed using univariate analysis. Three primary minimally invasive fellowship trained surgeons performed all of the procedures included in the analysis.

results72 patients were identified during the study period. 39 patients underwent robot- assisted repair (21 umbilical, 14 epigastric, 4 incisional), and 33 patients laparoscopic repair (27 umbilical, 6 epigastric). Seven had recurrent hernias (robot: 4, laparoscopic: 3). There were no significant differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. Average operative time was 156 min for robot-assisted repair and 65 min for laparoscopic repair (p < 0.0001). The average defect size was significantly larger for the robot group [3.07 cm (1-9 cm)] than that for the laparoscopic group [2.02 cm (0.5-5 cm)] (p < 0.0001), although there was no significant difference in the average size of mesh used (13 vs. 13 cm). There was no difference in patients requiring postoperative admission or length of stay between the two groups. The mean duration of follow-up was 47 days. There was no difference in complication rate during this time, and no recurrences were reported.

conclusionThere are no significant differences in terms of safety and early efficacy when comparing small-sized ventral hernias repaired using the robot-assisted technique versus the standard laparoscopic repair.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedFemaleHernia, VentralHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeRetrospective StudiesSurgical MeshEpigastricHerniaRoboticsUmbilicalVentral

Identifiers

PMID27450207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.