Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34609697›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2022

Robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Leonardo Solaini, Davide Cavaliere, Andrea Avanzolini, Giuseppe Rocco, Giorgio Ercolani

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 65 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. The impact of socioeconomic status in hernia treatment: a qualitative systematic review.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Leonardo SolainiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Forlì, Italy. leonardo.solaini2@unibo.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5031-9285
Davide CavaliereGeneral and Oncologic Surgery, Morgagni-Pierantoni Hospital, Via Forlanini 34, Forlì, FC, Italy.
Andrea AvanzoliniGeneral and Oncologic Surgery, Morgagni-Pierantoni Hospital, Via Forlanini 34, Forlì, FC, Italy.
Giuseppe RoccoGeneral and Oncologic Surgery, Morgagni-Pierantoni Hospital, Via Forlanini 34, Forlì, FC, Italy.
Giorgio ErcolaniDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Forlì, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to review the latest evidence on the robotic approach (RHR) for inguinal hernia repair comparing the pooled outcome of this technique with those of the standard laparoscopic procedure (LHR). A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for studies published between 2010 and 2021 concerning the comparison between RHR versus LHR. After screening 582 articles, 9 articles with a total of 64,426 patients (7589 RHRs) were eligible for inclusion. Among preoperative variables, a pooled higher ratio of ASA > 2 patients was found in the robotic group (12.4 vs 8.6%, p < 0.001). Unilateral hernia repair was more common in the laparoscopic group (79.9 vs 68.1, p < 0.001). Overall, operative time was longer in the robotic group (160 vs 90 min, p < 0.001); this was confirmed also in the sub-analysis on unilateral procedures (88 vs 68 min, p = 0.040). The operative time for robotic bilateral repair was similar to the laparoscopic one (111 vs 100, p = 0.797). Conversion to open surgery was 0% in the robotic group. The pooled rate of chronic pain and postoperative complications was similar between the groups. The standardized mean difference MD of the costs between LHR versus RHR was - 3270$ (95% CI - 4757 to - 1782, p < 0.001). In conclusion, laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair have similar safety parameters and postoperative outcomes. Robotic approach may require longer operative time if the unilateral repair is performed. Costs are higher in the robotic group.

Indexed as

Hernia, InguinalLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresHerniorrhaphyHumansOperative TimeGroin hernia repairMinimally invasive repairRobotic hernia surgeryRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID34609697
PMCPMC9314304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.