ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2019
Efficacy of robotic versus open transversus abdominis release in a porcine model.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Descriptive Anatomy of the Porcine Ventral Abdominal Wall as a Basis for Training Ventral Hernia Repair Techniques.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2024Article
- Short- to Midterm Results After Posterior Component Separation with Transversus Abdominis Release: Initial Experience from India.World journal of surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTransversus abdominis muscle release (TAR) combines retromuscular mesh placement with posterior component separation and muscle release. TAR is usually an open technique for abdominal wall reconstruction; however, several centers have performed this operation robotically and claim better clinical outcomes when compared to open surgery. We sought to compare robotic versus open TAR utilizing a porcine model.
methodsAnimals were randomized to open versus robotic TAR with mesh placement, survived for 4 weeks, then underwent diagnostic laparoscopy to assess adhesive burden and adhesion tenacity. T-peel testing was utilized to assess mesh ingrowth. The primary outcome was adhesive burden; secondary outcomes included mesh incorporation, contraction, and operative time.
resultsNine robotic and eight open TARs were performed. Mean operative time was significantly shorter for the open cases compared to robotic cases (88.6 ± 12.9 min versus 228.3 ± 46.2, p < 0.01). Operative time in the robotic arm of the study decreased over time, from 300 to 165 min. No difference was seen in the mean adhesion area between the two groups. Adhesion tenacity and mesh flatness were similar. The work required to peel the mesh off surrounding tissue was significantly higher in the open TAR than in the robotic TAR group: 52.6 ± 15.5 and 32.9 ± 10.6 mJ/cm
conclusionsThere were no differences in adhesions between the robotic and open approaches, but greater mesh contraction and ingrowth was observed in the open TAR group. Though operative time was longer in the robotic group, time dropped by about 40% from the first case to the last.
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.