ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2018
Patient perceptions of acute pain and activity disruption following inguinal hernia repair: a propensity-matched comparison of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open approaches.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spin is present in the majority of articles evaluating robot-assisted groin hernia repair: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Pooled it
- Robotic inguinal hernia repair: is technology taking over? Systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Robot-assisted abdominal wall surgery: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair Is Feasible and Efficient: A Prospective Cohort Study of a Day-Only Protocol From a High-Volume Robotic Surgery Centre Evaluating Short-Term Outcomes.ANZ journal of surgery · 2025Article
- The Clinical Impact of the Introduction of a Robot-Assisted Program in a Specialized Hernia Center: A Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study on Short-Term Outcomes.World journal of surgery · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair: Management of Inguinal Hernias in the 21st Century.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Enhanced recovery after surgery-guided strategies in single-incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal hernioplasty for inguinal hernia: a narrative review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
- Robotic Platform: What It Does and Does Not Offer in Hernia Surgery.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2024Article
- Risk factors predicting acute postoperative pain immediately after minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023Article
- Postoperative compression in preventing early complications after groin hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Observational
- Robot-assisted groin hernia repair is primarily performed by specialized surgeons: a scoping review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) approaches to bilateral hernia repair: a multicenter retrospective study using propensity score matching analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Current status and future perspectives of robotic inguinal hernia repair.Surgery today · 2022Review
- Does adoption of new technology increase surgical volume? The robotic inguinal hernia repair model.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Article
- Operating costs, fiscal impact, value analysis and guidance for the routine use of robotic technology in abdominal surgical procedures.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Clinical Data Analysis for Treatment of Adult Inguinal Hernia by TAPP or TEP.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Comparative perioperative and 5-year outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic or open inguinal hernia repair: a study of 153,727 patients in the state of New York.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Multiple perceptions of robotic-assisted surgery among surgeons and patients: a cross-sectional study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2021Article
- Comparison between robotic and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in Caucasian patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Prospective, multicenter, pairwise analysis of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair with open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: early results from the Prospective Hernia Study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Few publications describe the potential benefit of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair on acute postoperative groin pain (APGP). This study compared patients' perceptions of APGP, activity limitation, and overall satisfaction after robotic-assisted- (R), laparoscopic (L), or open (O) inguinal hernia repair (IHR). Random samples of patients from two web-based research panels and surgical practices were screened for patients who underwent IHR between October 28, 2015 and November 1, 2016. Qualified patients were surveyed to assess perceived APGP at 1 week postoperatively, activity disruption, and overall satisfaction. Three cohorts based on operative approach were compared after propensity matching. Propensity scoring resulted in 83 R-IHR matched to 83 L-IHR respondents, while 85 R-IHR matched with 85 O-IHR respondents. R-IHR respondents recalled less APGP compared to respondents who had O-IHR (4.1 ± 0.3 vs 5.6 ± 0.3, p < 0.01) but similar APGP compared to L-IHR (4.0 ± 0.3 vs 4.4 ± 0.3, p = 0.37). Respondents recalled less activity disruption 1 week postoperatively after R-IHR versus O-IHR (6.1 ± 0.3 vs. 7.3 ± 0.2, p < 0.01) but similar levels of activity disruption after R-IHR and L-IHR (6.0 ± 0.3 vs. 6.6 ± 0.27, p = 0.32). At the time of the survey, respondents perceived less physical activity disruption after R-IHR compared to O-IHR (1.4 ± 0.2 vs. 2.8 ± 0.4, p < 0.01) but similar between R-IHR and L-IHR (1.3 ± 0.2 vs 1.2 ± 0.2, p = 0.94). Most respondents felt satisfied with their outcome regardless of operative approach. Patient perceptions of pain and activity disruption differ by approach, suggesting a potential advantage of a minimally invasive technique over open for IHR. Further studies are warranted to determine long-term outcomes regarding pain and quality of life after IHR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.