ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery2025
Laparoscopic intra-peritoneal onlay mesh plus versus robotic transabdominal pre-peritoneal for primary ventral hernias: Our technique and outcomes.
Article in Journal of minimal access surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- "Comparative safety and efficacy of robotic TAPP and IPOM techniques in ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Short-term Outcomes".Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Chronic pain and foreign body sensation based on mesh placement in primary ventral hernia repair: a systematic review highlighting the evidence gap and a call to action.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Mesh placement and patient-reported outcomes in primary ventral hernia repair: a nationwide survey- and register-based study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Standardization of the latero-medial preperitoneal/pretransversalis dissection in PeTEP ventral hernia repair: single-center outcomes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Costing methodologies in robotic ventral hernia repair: a scoping review.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Article
- Totally Extraperitoneal Approach With Preperitoneal Repair for the Treatment of Midline Hernia Defects: A Case Series and Single-Center Experience.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2025Article
- Procedural Costs of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Ventral and Incisional Hernia Repair. A Propensity-Score Matched Nationwide Database Study.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntra-peritoneal onlay mesh repair (IPOM) still remains the most common approach for laparoscopic repair of small to medium sized hernias worldwide. In this study, we compare our early outcomes of an established procedure, i.e. laparoscopic IPOM plus to robotic transabdominal pre-peritoneal (rTAPP) for small to medium sized primary ventral hernia. To compare laparoscopic IPOM plus with rTAPP in terms of pain score, time to ambulate, hospital stay, time to return to work as well as the expenses. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data at our centre between July 2021 and June 2022. Operative time including docking time was recorded. Cost analysis was done in both set of patients. Pain scores were assessed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at regular intervals for up to 3 months and then at the end of 1 year. Time to ambulate, return of bowel function and return to work were documented. Any complication or recurrence during the study period was recorded.
resultsMean operative time for IPOM plus and rTAPP groups was 59.00 and 73.55 min, respectively. Mean pain score for IPOM at 6, 12 and 24 h was 7.35, 6.81 and 5.77, while for rTAPP, it was 4.73, 3 and 2.55, respectively. VAS scores at 1 week, 1 month and 3 month also showed similar trends. Mean time to ambulate in minutes for IPOM and rTAPP group was 357.69 and 223.64, respectively. Mean hospital stay in days for IPOM and rTAPP was 2.12 and 1.18, respectively. Mean time to return to work in days was 11.77 and 8.45 for IPOM and rTAPP groups, respectively. Expenditure wise, cost of TAPP was more and statistically significant, owing to the use of robotic platform. The mean overall cost of laparoscopic IPOM plus and rTAPP in rupees was 187,177.69 and 245,174.55, respectively.
conclusionRobotic TAPP appears an excellent alternative to laparoscopic IPOM plus. Larger studies with long-term follow-up data are further required to reinforce it.
Identifiers
What 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.