SynthesisBMC surgery2025
Efficacy and safety of robot-assisted versus endo-laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches on Patient Recovery: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Pain and quality of life outcomes following robotic and laparoscopic repair of small-mid sized ventral hernias: insights from the aspire india study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Chronic Groin Pain After Hernia Surgery: What Are We Missing?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo comprehensively compare the surgical outcomes of robotic ventral hernia repair (rVHR) with traditional endo-laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (lapVHR) using systematic review methods, evaluating the efficacy and safety of rVHR and providing reference for clinical applications of rVHR.
methodsThis systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) list. The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Web of science, Cochrane library, Embase, Scopus, and SpringerLink. The retrieval period spanned from the inception of database until 2024. Only randomized controlled trials were included. Outcomes of recurrence, re-hernioplasty, operative time, length of hospital stay and surgical site occurrence were compared between rVHR and lapVHR.
resultsA total of 5 studies (237 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with lapVHR, the treatment of rVHR significantly decreased re-hernioplasty (RR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.66). Additionally, rVHR significantly reduced the length of hospital stay (MD = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.71) and operative time (MD = 69.45, 95%CI: 45.76, 93.14). In addition, rVHR can reduce the recurrence rate, but it is a marginal statistical difference (RR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.19, 1.13).
conclusionOverall, both rVHR and lapVHR were effective and safe. Nevertheless, rVHR shows superiority in terms of recurrence rate and re-hernioplasty rate. More high-quality studies are warranted to validate the results of this study.
Indexed as
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.