Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29067575›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018

Inguinal hernia repair: is there a benefit to using the robot?

Eric J Charles, J Hunter Mehaffey, Carlos A Tache-Leon, Peter T Hallowell, Robert G Sawyer, Zequan Yang

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC 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 42 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Robotic inguinal hernia repair: is technology taking over? Systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. 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
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Feasibility study of a robot-assisted endoscopic technique for plate osteosyntheses of the acetabulum and anterior pelvic ring.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Senhance versus da Vinci robotic inguinal hernia repair: a multi-center propensity-weighted study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
    Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

6 authors.

Eric J CharlesDepartment of Surgery, University of Virginia, 1215 Lee Street, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA. ec4wx@virginia.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7472-0620
J Hunter MehaffeyDepartment of Surgery, University of Virginia, 1215 Lee Street, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA.
Carlos A Tache-LeonDepartment of Surgery, University of Virginia, 1215 Lee Street, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA.
Peter T HallowellDepartment of Surgery, University of Virginia, 1215 Lee Street, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA.
Robert G SawyerDepartment of Surgery, University of Virginia, 1215 Lee Street, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA.
Zequan YangDepartment of Surgery, University of Virginia, 1215 Lee Street, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA.

Funding

Cardiovascular Surgery Training ProgramT32HL007849 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI KRON, IRVING L., LAUBACH, VICTOR E · 1998 to 2025
$7.0M
Network for Cardiothoracic Surgical Investigations in Cardiovascular MedicineUM1HL088925 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI BADHWAR, VINAY, KRON, IRVING L. · 2013 to 2025
$6.8M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007849NHLBI NIH HHS UM1 HL088925
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of robotic surgical procedures performed yearly is constantly rising, due to improved dexterity and visualization capabilities compared with conventional methods. We hypothesized that outcomes after robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair would not be significantly different from outcomes after laparoscopic or open repair.

methodsAll patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair between 2012 and 2016 were identified using institutional American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Demographics; preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative characteristics; and outcomes were evaluated based on method of repair (Robot, Lap, or Open). Categorical variables were analyzed by Chi-square test and continuous variables using Mann-Whitney U.

resultsA total of 510 patients were identified who underwent unilateral inguinal hernia repair (Robot: 13.8% [n = 69], Lap: 48.1% [n = 241], Open: 38.1% [n = 191]). There were no demographic differences between groups other than age (Robot: 52 [39-62], Lap: 57 [45-67], and Open: 56 [48-67] years, p = 0.03). Operative duration was also different (Robot: 105 [76-146] vs. Lap: 81 [61-103] vs. Open: 71 [56-88] min, p < 0.001). There were no operative mortalities and all patients except one were discharged home the same day. Postoperative occurrences (adverse events, readmissions, and death) were similar between groups (Robot: 2.9% [2], Lap: 3.3% [8], Open: 5.2% [10], p = 0.53). Although rare, there was a significant difference in rate of postoperative skin and soft tissue infection (Robot: 2.9% [2] vs. Lap: 0% [0] vs. Open: 0.5% [1], p = 0.02). Cost was significantly different between groups (Robot: $7162 [$5942-8375] vs. Lap: $4527 [$2310-6003] vs. Open: $4264 [$3277-5143], p < 0.001).

conclusionsOutcomes after robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair were similar to outcomes after laparoscopic or open repair. Longer operative duration during robotic repair may contribute to higher rates of skin and soft tissue infection. Higher cost should be considered, along with surgeon comfort level and patient preference when deciding whether inguinal hernia repair is approached robotically.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultFemaleHernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeInguinal hernia repairLaparoscopic inguinal hernia repairOpen inguinal hernia repairRobotics

Identifiers

PMID29067575
PMCPMC10740385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.