Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39966282›Full record

SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025

Systematic review and meta-analysis on robotic assisted ventral hernia repair: the ROVER review.

Sara Capoccia Giovannini, Maaike Vierstraete, M Frascio, G Camerini, F Muysoms, C Stabilini

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The prehabilitation paradox in ventral hernia: from universal to personalized care.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

6 authors.

Sara Capoccia Giovannini *Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genoa, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, Genova, Italy. scapocciagiovannini@gmail.com.
Maaike Vierstraete *Department of General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
M FrascioDepartment of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genoa, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, Genova, Italy.
G CameriniDepartment of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genoa, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, Genova, Italy.
F MuysomsDepartment of Surgery, Maria Middelares Hospital, Gent, Belgium.
C StabiliniDepartment of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genoa, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, Genova, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRobotic surgery for ventral hernia repair (VHR) is gaining attention for its potential advantages over laparoscopic and open techniques. This approach combines the advantages of minimally invasive surgery with the ability to perform technically challenging procedures, often required in open surgery but difficult with conventional laparoscopy. We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of robotic VHR compared to other surgical approaches, focusing on postoperative complications, operative time, and costs. MATERIAL AND

methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis were conducted, including 67 studies from January 2010 to May 2023 on Robotic VHR compared with other techniques. Primary outcome was 30-days postoperative complications; SSI, SSO, seroma, mortality, recurrence, length of hospital stay, operative time and costs were analysed as secondary outcomes.

resultsRobotic surgery was associated with longer operative times compared to both laparoscopic (MD 64.67 min; p < 0.001) and open repairs (MD 69.69 min; p < 0.001). However, it resulted, compared to open surgery, in fewer SSIs (OR 0.62; p 0.05), mortality (OR 0.44; p 0.04) and shorter hospital stay (MD -3.77 days; p < 0.001). No differences were found in overall complications or length of stay between robotic and laparoscopic approaches but higher costs and longer operative times were reported in robotic VHR.

conclusionsBased on the currently available low-quality evidence, robotic VHR appears to offer limited advantages compared to laparoscopic techniques. However, when compared to open approaches, robotic VHR may demonstrate reduced postoperative complications and shorter hospital stays even if an higher rate of seroma formation was retrieved probably related to technical details. Nevertheless, longer operative times and higher costs remain significant limitations. Further high-quality comparative studies are warranted to assess long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

Hernia, VentralHerniorrhaphyRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsLaparoscopyMeta-analysisMinimally invasive surgeryRobotic surgeryTARVentral hernia repair

Identifiers

PMID39966282

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.