Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35982283›Full record

ReviewSurgical endoscopy2023

Robotic repair of perineal hernias: a video vignette and review of the literature.

Sarah Watanaskul, Marisa E Schwab, Alexis Colley, Hueylan Chern, Madhulika G Varma, William Y Hoffman, Ankit Sarin

Open access · hybridFull text readReviewVideo-Audio Media
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarah WatanaskulSchool of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Marisa E SchwabDepartment of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. marisa.schwab@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-1840
Alexis ColleyDepartment of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Hueylan ChernDepartment of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Madhulika G VarmaDepartment of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
William Y HoffmanDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Ankit SarinDepartment of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Surgical Oncology Training GrantT32CA251070 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ESSERMAN, LAURA J · 2020 to 2024
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA251070
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerineal hernias can be secondarily acquired following abdominoperineal resection of the rectum. While transabdominal minimally invasive techniques have traditionally used laparoscopy, there are few studies published on the robotic platform, which has been gaining popularity for other types of hernia repairs. We review the existing literature, share a video vignette, and provide practical tips for surgeons interested in adopting this approach.

methodsA literature search in Pubmed was performed to include all articles in English describing robotic repair of perineal hernias with identification of variables of interest related to repair. A case presentation with an accompanying video vignette and lessons learned from the experience are provided.

resultsSeven case reports (four containing video) published between 2019 and 2022 were included. Most articles (n = 5) utilized the Da Vinci Si or Xi, and most patients (n = 5) had undergone abdominoperineal resection with neoadjuvant chemotherapy to treat rectal cancer. Patients were positioned in Trendelenburg with rightward tilt (n = 2), modified lithotomy (n = 1), or a combination of the two (n = 1). All articles (n = 7) reported closing the defect and using mesh. Three articles describe placing five ports (one camera, three robotic, one assistant). There were no significant intraoperative or postoperative complications reported, and no recurrence noted at 3-27 months follow-up. Based on our experience, as shown in the video vignette, we recommend lithotomy positioning, using porous polypropylene mesh anchored to the periosteum of the sacrum and peritoneum overlying the bladder and side wall, and placing a drain above the mesh.

conclusionsA robotic transabdominal approach to perineal hernia repair is a viable alternate to laparoscopy based on low complication rates and lack of recurrence. Prospective and longer duration data are needed to compare the techniques.

Indexed as

Hernia, AbdominalLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresHerniorrhaphyHumansProspective StudiesSurgical MeshDa VinciMISPerineal herniaRobotic

Identifiers

PMID35982283
PMCPMC10017789
OpenAlexW4292361884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read6
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.