Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33107011›Full record

ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2021

Feasibility of robotic-assisted minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair in patients with urologic considerations including artificial urinary sphincters and bladder herniation.

Caleb Lade, Samara Lewis, Kiran Venincasa, Allison Harmon, Preston Choi, Benjamin Lee, Alexander Raines

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of robotic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Inguinal hernia repair in patients with artificial urinary sphincter after radical prostatectomy.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024
    Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Caleb LadeCollege of Medicine (Department of Surgery), The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, USA. Caleb-Lade@ouhsc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8682-1170
Samara LewisCollege of Medicine (Department of Surgery), The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Kiran VenincasaCollege of Medicine (Department of Surgery), The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Allison HarmonCollege of Medicine (Department of Surgery), The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Preston ChoiCollege of Medicine (Department of Surgery), The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Benjamin LeeCollege of Medicine (Department of Surgery), The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Alexander RainesCollege of Medicine (Department of Surgery), The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3526-8846

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic surgical technology has the potential to broaden the applicability of minimally invasive approaches into more complex, technically challenging inguinal hernia repairs. A unique patient population requiring inguinal hernia repair are those patients who either have artificial urinary sphincters (AUS) or inguinal bladder herniation (IBH). Traditionally, these patients have not been considered candidates for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs. Through this retrospective series, we aim to contribute to the growing body of literature on robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) by describing our experience with RIHR in this patient subset. We performed a retrospective chart review of RIHR cases performed from June 2017 to April 2019 by a single surgeon at our university-affiliated community hospital. Charts were reviewed for preoperative considerations, operative complications, and postoperative outcomes. A total of three patients with an AUS and six patients with IBH were included, all of whom were male. All the patients received transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) approaches, and all received placement of mesh. There were no intraoperative complications and no conversions to open surgery. Postoperatively, one patient with IBH had persistent surgical site pain that resolved after 3 weeks and one patient, also with IBH, had a surgical site seroma that resolved without further intervention. Mean follow-up time was 10.71 and 12.13 months for patients with AUS and IBH, respectively. No patients reported hernia recurrence during this time. This review suggests that the use of robotic assistance for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is safe and effective and may provide additional benefits for patients with concurrent urological considerations such as AUS and IBH.

Indexed as

Hernia, InguinalLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresUrinary Sphincter, ArtificialFeasibility StudiesHerniorrhaphyHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesSurgical MeshUrinary BladderArtificial urinary sphincterAUSIBHInguinal bladder herniationInguinal hernia repairMinimally invasive surgeryRIHRRobot-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairTAPPTransabdominal preperitoneal

Identifiers

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.