Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31571036›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020

Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

Jad Khoraki, Pedro P Gomez, Guilherme S Mazzini, Bernardo M Pessoa, Matthew G Browning, Gretchen R Aquilina, Jennifer L Salluzzo, Luke G Wolfe, Guilherme M Campos

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. ROBOTIC-ASSISTED VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC INCISIONAL HERNIA REPAIR: DIFFERENCES IN DIRECT COSTS FROM A BRAZILIAN PUBLIC INSTITUTE PERSPECTIVE.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2023
    Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  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. Article
  14. Article
  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. Review
  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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jad KhorakiDivision of Bariatric and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Pedro P GomezDivision of Bariatric and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Guilherme S MazziniDivision of Bariatric and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Bernardo M PessoaDivision of Bariatric and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Matthew G BrowningDivision of Bariatric and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Gretchen R AquilinaDivision of Bariatric and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Jennifer L SalluzzoDivision of Bariatric and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Luke G WolfeDivision of Bariatric and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Guilherme M CamposDivision of Bariatric and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA. guilherme.campos@vcuhealth.org.ORCID 0000-0001-7384-8705
Virginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUtilization of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair (IHR) has increased in recent years, but randomized or prospective studies comparing outcomes and cost of laparoscopic and Robotic-IHR are still lacking. With conflicting results from only five retrospective series available in the literature comparing the two approaches, the question remains whether current robotic technology provides any added benefits to treat inguinal hernias. We aimed to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of Robotic-IHR versus laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal IHR (Laparoscopic-IHR).

methodsRetrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent Robotic-IHR or Laparoscopic-IHR at a dedicated MIS unit in the USA from February 2015 to June 2017. Demographics, anthropometrics, the proportion of bilateral and recurrent hernias, operative details, cost, length of stay, 30-day readmissions and reoperations, and rates and severity of complications were compared.

results183 patients had surgery: 45 (24.6%) Robotic-IHR and 138 (75.4%) Laparoscopic-IHR. There were no differences between groups in age, gender, BMI, ASA class, the proportion of bilateral hernias and recurrent hernias, and length of stay. Operative time (Robotic-IHR: 116 ± 36 min, vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 95±44 min, p < 0.01), reoperations (Robotic-IHR: 6.7%, vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 0%, p = 0.01), and readmissions rates were greater for Robotic-IHR. While the overall perioperative complication rate was similar in between groups (Robotic-IHR: 28.9% vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 18.1%, p = 0.14), Robotic-IHR was associated with a significantly greater proportion of grades III and IV complications (Robotic-IHR: 6.7% vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 0%, p = 0.01). Total hospital cost was significantly higher for the Robotic-IHRs ($9993 vs. $5994, p < 0.01). The added cost associated with the robotic device itself was $3106 per case and the total cost of disposable supplies was comparable between the 2 groups.

conclusionsIn the setting in which it was studied, the outcomes of Laparoscopic-IHR were significantly superior to the Robotic-IHR, at lower hospital costs. Laparoscopic-IHR remains the preferred minimally invasive surgical approach to treat inguinal hernias.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePerioperative PeriodPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationRetrospective StudiesRobotic Surgical ProceduresTertiary Care CentersComplicationCostInguinal herniaLaparoscopic surgeryRobotic surgerySurgery

Identifiers

PMID31571036
OpenAlexW2979268618

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.