ArticleJournal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS2025
Outcomes During the Learning Curve and Feasibility of Implementing the European Hernia Society Recommendation Guidelines for Robotic Abdominal Wall Surgery Within a UK Centre.
Article in Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Learning curve in robotic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted surgery for parastomal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Early Adoption of Technically Complex Robotic Ventral Hernia Repair in a Low-Volume Center: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis with Consecutive Open Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Robotic inguinal and umbilical hernia repair: clinical outcomes, costs, and future perspectives: a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for abdominal wall hernia repair is an established, minimally invasive technique that is in the early phase of adoption within the UK. We aimed to demonstrate the impact on patient outcomes and safety of hernia repair by adhering to the robotic abdominal wall surgery pathway developed by the European Hernia Society. Materials and Methods: Two experienced laparoscopic surgeons in the UK underwent four phases that involved preclinical and clinical phases. The surgeons performed RAS hernia surgery with a stepwise increase in complexity, from robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (rTAPP) inguinal hernia repair, robotic transabdominal retrorectus umbilical prosthesis (rTARUP)/extended totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) to robotic transversus abdominis release (rTAR). Results: In total, 144 patients underwent RAS for hernia repair. Of these, 97 underwent rTAPP inguinal hernia repair (23 bilateral cases). The median operative time was 56 min for unilateral and 101 min for bilateral repair. Four (3.3%) rTAPP patients experienced complications, with two recurrences at the 6-month follow-up. Forty-two patients underwent rTARUP/eTEP repair, with a median operative time of 167 min. Two (4.8%) of these patients experienced postoperative complications. No recurrences were observed at 6 months. Thirteen patients with incisional hernias underwent rTAR, with a median operative time of 426 min. No recurrences were observed in rTAR patients, followed for up to 12 months. Discussion: Implementation of the EHS training pathway for robotic abdominal wall surgery resulted in a low complication rate and satisfactory clinical outcomes and represents a robust mechanism for surgeons to safely adopt complex robotic abdominal wall surgery.
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.