Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28733746›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018

Comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes of robotic versus open transversus abdominis release.

Luis A Martin-Del-Campo, Adam S Weltz, Igor Belyansky, Yuri W Novitsky

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 75 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

75 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  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. Systematic review of transversus abdominis release in complex abdominal wall reconstruction.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019
    Pooled it
  12. The Treatment of Incisional Hernia.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018
    Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Robotic management of Morgagni hernias: a case series from a specialized hernia center.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Luis A Martin-Del-CampoDepartment of Surgery, University Hospitals, Cleveland Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA.
Adam S WeltzDepartment of General Surgery, Anne Arundel Medical Center, Annapolis, MD, USA.
Igor BelyanskyDepartment of General Surgery, Anne Arundel Medical Center, Annapolis, MD, USA.
Yuri W NovitskyDepartment of Surgery, University Hospitals, Cleveland Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA. yuri.novitsky@uhhospitals.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTransversus abdominis release (TAR) has evolved as an effective approach to complex abdominal wall reconstructions. Although the role of robotics in hernia surgery is rapidly expanding, the benefits of a robotic approach for abdominal wall reconstruction have not been established well. We aimed to compare the impact of the application of robotics to the TAR procedure on the perioperative outcomes when compared to the open TAR repairs.

methodsCase-matched comparison of patients undergoing robotic TAR (R-TAR) at two specialized hernia centers to a matched historic cohort of open TAR (O-TAR) patients was performed. Outcome measures included patient demographics, operative details, postoperative complications, and length of hospitalization.

results38 consecutive patients undergoing R-TAR were compared to 76 matched O-TAR. Patient demographics were similar between the groups, but ASA III status was more prevalent in the O-TAR group. The average operative time was significantly longer in the R-TAR group (299 ± 95 vs.. 211 ± 63 min, p < 0.001) and blood loss was significantly lower for the R-TAR group (49 ± 60 vs. 139 ± 149 mL, p < 0.001). Wound morbidity was minimal in the R-TAR, but the rate of surgical site events and surgical site infection was not different between groups. Systemic complications were significantly less frequent in the R-TAR group (0 vs. 17.1%, p = 0.026). The length of hospitalization was significantly reduced in the R-TAR group (1.3 ± 1.3 vs. 6.0 ± 3.4 days, p < 0.001).

conclusionsIn our early experience, robotic TAR was associated with longer operative times. However, we found that the use of robotics was associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss, fewer systemic complications, shorter hospitalizations, and eliminated readmissions. While long-term outcomes and patient selection criteria for robotic TAR repair are under investigations, we advocate selective use of robotics for TAR reconstructions in patients undergoing AWR.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresAbdominal MusclesAbdominal WallBlood Loss, SurgicalFemaleHernia, VentralHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsAbdominal wall reconstructionRobotic hernia repairRobotic surgeryTransversus abdomins release (TAR)

Identifiers

PMID28733746

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.