Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28646321›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018

Early outcomes of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair in obese patients: a multi-institutional, retrospective study.

Ramachandra Kolachalam, Eugene Dickens, Lawrence D'Amico, Christopher Richardson, Jorge Rabaza, Reza Gamagami, Anthony Gonzalez

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Ramachandra KolachalamDepartment of Surgery, Providence-Providence Park Hospital, 26850, Providence Pkwy, Suite 460, Novi, MI, 48374, USA. Rkolachalam@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2881-2284
Eugene DickensHillcrest Medical Center and Oklahoma Physician Group, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Lawrence D'AmicoValleyCare Health System of Ohio, Trumbull Memorial Hospital, Warren, OH, USA.
Christopher RichardsonRochester General Hospital, Rochester, NY, USA.
Jorge RabazaDepartment of General and Bariatric Surgery, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, USA.
Reza GamagamiSilver Cross Hospital, New Lenox, IL, USA.
Anthony GonzalezDepartment of General and Bariatric Surgery, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, USA.
Baptist Health South Florida · USHillcrest Hospital · USMemorial Hospital · USProvidence Park Hospital · USRochester General Hospital · USSilver Cross Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimally invasive inguinal hernia repair (IHR) in general and particularly in obese patients has not been widely adopted, potentially due to the perceived technical challenges and the well-documented learning curve associated with laparoscopic repair. Outcomes in robotic-assisted IHR in obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m

methodsSeven surgeons conducted a multicenter retrospective chart review of their early robotic-assisted IHR (RHR) cases and compared them with their open IHR (OHR) cases. Demographics, operative characteristics, and perioperative morbidity were compared for unadjusted and propensity-matched populations.

results651 robotic-assisted cases and 593 open cases were collected. The outcomes of 148 RHRs to 113 OHRs in obese patients were compared. For obese populations-whether unadjusted (robotic-assisted, n = 148; open, n = 113) or matched (1:1) (robotic-assisted, n = 95; open, n = 93)-the robotic-assisted and open cohorts were comparable in terms of demographics and baseline characteristics. Significantly higher percentages of OHR patients experienced postoperative complications post-discharge (unadjusted: 11.5% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.005; and matched: 10.8% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.047). More concomitant procedures and bilateral repairs were conducted in obese RHR patients than in obese OHR patients (unadjusted 29.7% vs. 16.8%, p = 0.019; and unadjusted 35.1% vs. 11.5%, p < 0.0001-respectively). Prior laparoscopic IHR experience did not affect 30-day outcomes.

conclusionsObese patients who undergo RHR have a lower rate of postoperative complications compared to obese patients who undergo OHR. Previous laparoscopic IHR experience, more bilateral repairs, and more concomitant procedures were not associated with increased complications in RHR patients. These outcomes may facilitate increased adoption of minimally invasive IHR approaches in the obese population.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyHumansMaleMiddle AgedObesityPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsDa VinciInguinal hernia repairLaparoscopicMinimally invasive surgeryObesityRobotic-assisted

Identifiers

PMID28646321
OpenAlexW2634934059

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.