Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34791049›Full record

SynthesisBJS open2021

Clinical outcomes and cost of robotic ventral hernia repair: systematic review.

Linda Ye, Christopher P Childers, Michael de Virgilio, Rivfka Shenoy, Michael A Mederos, Selene S Mak, Meron M Begashaw, Marika S Booth, Paul G Shekelle, Mark Wilson and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJS open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Rectus diastasis is not a single entity: phenotype-specific controversies in surgical management.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

13 authors.

Linda YeDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0353-4265
Christopher P ChildersDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6489-8222
Michael de VirgilioDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Rivfka ShenoyDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Michael A MederosDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Selene S MakVeterans Health Administration, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Meron M BegashawVeterans Health Administration, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Marika S BoothRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, USA.
Paul G ShekelleVeterans Health Administration, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Mark WilsonUS Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, USA.
William GunnarVeterans Health Administration, National Center for Patient Safety, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Mark D GirgisDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Melinda Maggard-GibbonsDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic ventral hernia repair (VHR) has seen rapid adoption, but with limited data assessing clinical outcome or cost. This systematic review compared robotic VHR with laparoscopic and open approaches.

methodsThis systematic review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles with terms relating to 'robot-assisted', 'cost effectiveness', and 'ventral hernia' or 'incisional hernia' from 1 January 2010 to 10 November 2020. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, pain, recurrence, and cost data were extracted for narrative analysis.

resultsOf 25 studies that met the inclusion criteria, three were RCTs and 22 observational studies. Robotic VHR was associated with a longer duration of operation than open and laparoscopic repairs, but with fewer transfusions, shorter hospital stay, and lower complication rates than open repair. Robotic VHR was more expensive than laparoscopic repair, but not significantly different from open surgery in terms of cost. There were no significant differences in rates of intraoperative complication, conversion to open surgery, surgical-site infection, readmission, mortality, pain, or recurrence between the three approaches.

conclusionRobotic VHR was associated with a longer duration of operation, fewer transfusions, a shorter hospital stay, and fewer complications compared with open surgery. Robotic VHR had higher costs and a longer operating time than laparoscopic repair. Randomized or matched data with standardized reporting, long-term outcomes, and cost-effectiveness analyses are still required to weigh the clinical benefits against the cost of robotic VHR.

Indexed as

Hernia, VentralIncisional HerniaRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHerniorrhaphyHumans

Identifiers

PMID34791049
PMCPMC8599882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.