Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35851822›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023

Comparison of perioperative and mid-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair.

Omar Yusef Kudsi, Naseem Bou-Ayash, Georges Kaoukabani, Fahri Gokcal

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. 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. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

4 authors.

Omar Yusef KudsiDepartment of Surgery, Good Samaritan Medical Center, One Pearl Street, Brockton, MA, 02301, USA. omar.kudsi@tufts.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6723-0909
Naseem Bou-AyashDepartment of Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1102-9170
Georges KaoukabaniDepartment of Surgery, Good Samaritan Medical Center, One Pearl Street, Brockton, MA, 02301, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1626-3126
Fahri GokcalDepartment of Surgery, Good Samaritan Medical Center, One Pearl Street, Brockton, MA, 02301, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0832-7991

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough the advantages of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) have been described, guidelines regarding robotic inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) have yet to be established, despite its increased adoption as a minimally invasive alternative. This study compares the largest single-center cohorts of LIHR and RIHR and aims to shed light on the differences in outcomes between these two techniques.

methodsPatients who underwent LIHR or RIHR over an 8-year period were included as part of a retrospective analysis. Variables were stratified by preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative timeframes. Complications were listed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system and comprehensive complication index (CCI®). Study groups were compared using univariate analyses and Kaplan-Meier's time-to-event analysis.

resultsA total of 1153 patients were included: 606 patients underwent LIHR, while 547 underwent RIHR. Although demographics and comorbidities were mostly similar between the groups, the RIHR group included a higher proportion of complex hernias. Operative times were in favor of LIHR (42 vs. 53 min, p < 0.001), while RIHR had a smaller number of peritoneal breaches (0.4 vs. 3.8%, p < 0.001) as well as conversions (0.2 vs. 2.8%, p < 0.001). The number of patients lost-to-follow-up and the average follow-up times were similar (p = 0.821 and p = 0.304, respectively). Postoperatively, CCI® scores did not differ between the two groups (median = 0, p = 0.380), but Grade IIIB complications (1.2 vs. 3.3%, p = 0.025) and recurrences (0.8% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.013) were in favor of RIHR. Furthermore, estimated recurrence-free time was higher in the RIHR group [p = 0.032; 99.7 months (95% CI 98.8-100.5) vs. 97.6 months (95% CI 95.9-99.3).

conclusionThis study demonstrated that RIHR may confer advantages over LIHR in terms of addressing more complex repairs while simultaneously reducing conversion and recurrence rates, at the expense of prolonged operation times. Further large-scale prospective studies and trials are needed to validate these findings and better understand whether RIHR offers substantial clinical benefit compared with LIHR.

Indexed as

Hernia, InguinalLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresHerniorrhaphyHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesGroin herniaInguinal herniaLaparoscopicMinimally invasiveRobotic

Identifiers

PMID35851822

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.