ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2022
A cost analysis of two- versus three-instrument robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair with mesh: time is money.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2022. 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.
- Contemporary inguinal hernia repair: do cost and operative time still differ by approach?Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Robot-assisted groin hernia repair is primarily performed by specialized surgeons: a scoping review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Equipment expenses and operating times can lead to higher costs with robotic surgery. We compared the cost-effectiveness of 2- vs. 3-instrument (2i vs. 3i) approach to robotic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. We conducted a retrospective study of 172 patients, with 86 patients in each group. Procedure cost, operative time, morbidity, length of stay, readmission rate, and hernia recurrence at 90 days were compared. Statistical significance was assigned to p < 0.05. No significant differences in preoperative variables nor in postoperative outcomes were identified. Mean operative time was 6 min longer in the 2i group and this approach cost $300 less. The 2i approach was cost-effective for operating room (OR) costs of less than $50 per minute. Surgeon efficiency and OR dollar-per-minute value influence the potential for cost savings with fewer instruments in robotic herniorrhaphy. There is no difference in outcomes when fewer instruments are used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33997917What 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.