ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Robotic inguinal hernia repair: is the new Da Vinci single port platform providing any benefit?
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 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Application of the Da Vinci Single-Port (SP) Robot in General Surgery: A First Systematic Review.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review of the Da Vinci® Single-Port system (DVSP) in the context of colorectal surgery.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Pooled it
- Single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- New Robotic Platforms in General Surgery: What's the Current Clinical Scenario?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Pooled it
- Mapping the scientific landscape of robotic hernia repair: a bibliometric and topic modeling analysis of thematic transitions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- A single-center experience of over 600 cases of robotic cholecystectomy: a propensity score match analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Evaluation of single-port robotic initial treatment of hernias (ESPRITH study): an initial case series following the IDEAL framework.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- The da Vinci Single-Port Robotic Platform in General Surgery: A Scoping Review of Current Applications and Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Earlier Experience of Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair With the New Hugo™ Robotic System in Europe.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2025Article
- Robotic minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair with the Dexter robotic system™: A prospective multicenter clinical investigation.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Da Vinci single-port robotic system current application and future perspective in general surgery: A scoping review.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe utilization of the robot for inguinal hernia repairs has increased in the past years. The new Da Vinci Single Port (SP) system provides the benefits of single-incision procedures and might overcome the technical difficulties of previous single-incision techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the SP transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (SP-TAPP) and compare its outcomes to the robotic multiport technique (MP-TAPP).
methodsA prospective cohort of patients who underwent a robotic SP-TAPP and MP-TAPP between 2012 and 2022 was analyzed. Primary endpoints were same-day discharge, morbidity, and inguinal recurrence rates. Secondary endpoints included conversion, operative time, port-site incisional hernia, and chronic pain.
resultsMP-TAPP and SP-TAPP were performed in 378 (81.3%) and 87 (18.7%) patients, respectively. Demographics were similar between groups. There were no conversions or intraoperative complications. Mean operative (MP-TAPP: 93.2 vs. SP-TAPP: 78.1 min, p = 0.003) and recovery time (MP-TAPP: 160.8 vs SP-TAPP: 112.6 min, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the SP group. Same-day discharge rate was higher (MP-TAPP: 86.5% vs. SP-TAPP: 97.7%, p = 0.001) after SP-TAPP; 30-day morbidity, readmissions, and chronic pain rates were similar between groups. After a mean follow-up of 30.6 months for MP-TAPP and 13.3 months for SP-TAPP, inguinal hernia recurrence and port-site incisional rates were similar between groups.
conclusionRobotic SP-TAPP is safe and feasible. When compared to MP-TAPP, it showed similar postoperative morbidity, higher same-day discharge rates, and a quicker postoperative recovery. Further studies are needed to confirm the benefits of the SP platform.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36282359What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.