Observational studyHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025
Surgeons transitioning from laparoscopic to robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair: a prospective analysis of efficiency.
Observational study in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- First United States experience of robotic-assisted minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair using the Dexter surgical system.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Robotic eTEP inguinal hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAvailable reports of surgeon efficiency when transitioning from laparoscopic to robotic-assisted (RA) inguinal hernia repair (IHR) are retrospective or describe single-center experience. The purpose of this study is to provide a prospective, multi-surgeon, multi-center assessment of surgeon efficiency when transitioning from Lap-IHR to RA-IHR.
methodsGeneral surgeons with Lap-IHR experience (≥300 Lap-IHRs prior to the study) but with no robotic experience (no RA cases one year prior to the study) consented to participate in this prospective, observational pilot study of their surgical efficiency as they adopted RA-IHR. Efficiency was measured through procedure durations, including skin-to-skin time and time to establish critical view of the myopectineal orifice (MPO). Rates of conversions, and adverse events (AEs) through 30 days post RA-IHR procedure were also reported. Outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) describe surgeons' collective and individual unilateral and bilateral early, middle, and late-phase cases, with each surgeon contributing 25 consecutive cases at each phase.
resultsFour surgeons consented to enroll in the study and provided 75 consecutive, prospective RA-IHR cases. Collectively, the surgeons reached relative skin-to-skin time efficiencies for their unilateral repairs in the mid-phase of their prospective cases. For RA-IHR bilateral procedures, skin-to-skin time efficiency was reached in the late-phase cases. Surgeons' skin-to-skin efficiency times varied relative to their retrospective Lap-IHRs. Possible confounders included practice patterns, referrals, proctoring periods, and-for one surgeon-Covid interruptions. One conversion from RA-IHR to open resulted from severe adhesions present after prior prostatectomy. AEs varied broadly from surgeon to surgeon.
conclusionsThe four surgeons improved their skin-to-skin efficiencies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39760751What 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.