Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34557961›Full record

SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2021

Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and propensity score matched studies.

Ramkumar Mohan, Marcus Yeow, Joel Yat Seng Wong, Nicholas Syn, Sujith Wijerathne, Davide Lomanto

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Use of PERitoneal free flap (PERFF) augmentation in complex ventral hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors.

Ramkumar Mohan *Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Marcus Yeow *Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Joel Yat Seng WongYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9745-2219
Nicholas SynYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Sujith WijerathneDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgical Centre, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119074, Singapore.
Davide LomantoDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgical Centre, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119074, Singapore. davide_lomanto@nuhs.edu.sg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThere has not been a consensus on the superiority of a surgical approach for minimally invasive ventral hernia repair. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aims to compare clinical, and patient-reported outcomes of robotic-assisted ventral hernia repair (rVHR) to traditional endo-laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (lapVHR).

methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Scopus from inception to 16th March 2021. We selected randomised controlled trials and propensity score matched studies comparing rVHR to lapVHR. A meta-analysis was done for the outcomes of operative time, length of hospital stay, open conversion, recurrence, surgical site occurrence and cost.

resultsA total of 5 studies (3732 patients) were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Significantly shorter operative times were reported with the lapVHR as compared to rVHR (weighted mean difference (WMD): 62.52, 95% CI: 50.84-74.19). There was also significantly less rates of open conversion with rVHR as compared to lapVHR (WMD: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.09-0.54). No significant differences in patient-reported outcomes that was discernible from the two papers that reported them.

conclusionOverall, rVHR is comparable to lapVHR with longer operative times but less open conversion. It is, therefore, important to have proper patient selection to maximise the utility of rVHR.

Indexed as

Hernia, VentralLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresHerniorrhaphyHumansPropensity ScoreRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHerniaLaparoscopicRepairRoboticVentral

Identifiers

PMID34557961

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.