Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35066790›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2022

Learning curve of robotic inguinal hernia repair in the hands of an experienced laparoscopic surgeon: a comparative study.

Katz Ephraim, Benvenisti Haggai, Adileh Mohammad, Assaf Dan, Nevo Yehonatan, Segev Lior, Orkin Dina, Hazzan David

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Learning curve in robotic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Description of the Current Da VinciJournal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2022
    Review
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

8 authors.

Katz Ephraim *Department of General and Oncological Surgery-Surgery C, The Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Benvenisti Haggai *Department of General and Oncological Surgery-Surgery C, The Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Adileh MohammadDepartment of General and Oncological Surgery-Surgery C, The Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Assaf DanDepartment of General and Oncological Surgery-Surgery C, The Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Nevo YehonatanDepartment of General and Oncological Surgery-Surgery C, The Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Segev LiorDepartment of General and Oncological Surgery-Surgery C, The Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Orkin DinaOperating Room Division and Anesthesia Department, The Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Hazzan DavidDepartment of General and Oncological Surgery-Surgery C, The Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Gan, Israel. Hazzan2David@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince its introduction, robotic surgery has been utilized in different types of surgeries over various specialties. However, studies done thus far comparing robotic (Rob. IHR) and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (Lap. IHR) yielded contrasting results.

objectivesThis study evaluates the outcomes of adapting the robotic platform for IHR by a single experienced surgeon, comparing it to laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (Lap. IHR) performed at same time period.

methodsRetrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database including all patients that underwent IHR between 2017 and 2019 (n = 188) was performed. Analyzed data included patient demographics, hernia characteristics, intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes.

resultsPatients (n = 188) underwent a total of 120 Rob. IHR and 157 Lap. IHR. Age, sex, BMI, ASA score and length of hospital stay were similar in both groups. Recurring hernias were repaired more often robotically (p = 0.001). Operative time was significantly longer using the robot. (78.8 ± 24 min vs 55.4 ± 17.4 min for unilateral) and (107.9 ± 30 min vs 62.6 ± 20.2 min for bilateral) Rob. IHR vs Lap. IHR respectively, p < 0.001. Rob. IHR operative time decreased while building a learning curve. Rates of simple and severe postoperative complications were similar, p = 0.414. Recurrence occurred once in Rob. IHR group (1.4%) and 3 times in the Lap. IHR (1.9%) (p = 0.642).

conclusionOur series shows that Rob. IHR is safe with comparable outcomes to Lap. IHR even in early learning curve. Robotic inguinal hernia repair allows the buildup of a short, safe and efficacious robotic learning experience for the minimally invasive surgeons for future more complex robotic surgeries.

Indexed as

Hernia, InguinalLaparoscopyRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurgeonsHerniorrhaphyHumansLearning CurveRetrospective StudiesInguinal hernia repairMinimally invasive surgeryRobotic surgeryTAPPTEP

Identifiers

PMID35066790

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.