ArticleAnnals of gastroenterological surgery2020
Preliminary results of robotic inguinal hernia repair following its introduction in a single-center trial.
Article in Annals of gastroenterological surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 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 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
- Usefulness of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using the Endoscope Manipulator Robot (EMARO).Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
- Laparoscopic versus robotic TAPP/TEP inguinal hernia repair: a multicenter, propensity score weighted study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Observational
- Robot-assisted groin hernia repair is primarily performed by specialized surgeons: a scoping review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Current status and future perspectives of robotic inguinal hernia repair.Surgery today · 2022Review
- How to Establish the Bipolar Forceps Dissection Method in Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2022Article
- Operating costs, fiscal impact, value analysis and guidance for the routine use of robotic technology in abdominal surgical procedures.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Preliminary results of robotic inguinal hernia repair following its introduction in a single-center trial.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2020Article
- Utility of Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Transabdominal Preperitoneal Repair of Inguinal Hernia Following Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimRobotic surgery using the da Vinci system has markedly increased worldwide. However, robotic inguinal hernia repair remains unpopular outside the United States. We introduced and evaluated a robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair (R-TAPP) technique for inguinal hernia in our hospital.
methodsFirst, we designed a task protocol according to the surgical results of 388 laparoscopic TAPP (L-TAPP) procedures performed during the 4 years prior to introducing R-TAPP. Our task protocol included several time limitations during a step-wise procedure: creating the peritoneal flap (<60 minutes), mesh placement with fixation (<30 minutes), and peritoneal suture closure (<30 minutes) under experienced supervision. We investigated the preliminary clinical results of R-TAPP performed by a single operator between December 2018 and January 2020.
resultsWe identified 27 lesions in 20 patients (unilateral in 13 and bilateral in seven). According to the Japan Hernia Society Classification, our cohort included eight type I, five type II, and seven bilateral hernias (nine type I, four type II, and one type IV). The median operation time was 124 minutes (range, 81-164 minutes), and the median console operation time was 85 minutes (range, 50-132). The median time required for the peritoneal incision was 30 minutes (range, 18-54 minutes), that for mesh placement (including tucking) was 13 minutes (range, 7-27 minutes), and that for peritoneal suturing was 9 minutes (range, 3-20 minutes).
conclusionOur preliminary results suggest that our task protocol for R-TAPP is feasible. However, refinement of our task protocol is essential for standardization.
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.