ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025
Short-term outcomes after robot-assisted retromuscular versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair of small-to-medium ventral hernias: a prospective, multicenter, propensity score-matched analysis.
Article 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, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Outcomes of intraperitoneal compared to retromuscular mesh placement in ventral incisional hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted retromuscular (R-RM) or laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (L-IPOM) repair of small-to-medium ventral hernias.
methodsAll R-RM patients were prospectively enrolled, and their results collected in the French hernia registry. These were propensity score-matched (2:1) with L-IPOM patients whose results had already been prospectively collected in the registry. All patients had a primary or incisional hernia (M3 defect < 5 cm). The primary endpoint was the pain score on postoperative day 1 (POD1), using the 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS-11).
resultsThe results from 69 consecutive R-RM patients were compared to 138 matched L-IPOM patients. At POD1, the NRS-11 score was 27% lower after R-RM (3.7) than L-IPOM (5.1; p = 0.0002). Operative times were longer for R-RM (96.4 vs. 34.4 min; p < 0.0001). A higher proportion of patients underwent day surgery with R-RM (76.8%) than L-IPOM (48.8%; p < 0.0001). One Clavien IIIb postoperative complication occurred after R-RM. The overall morbidity was comparable in both groups. The time to return to work was shorter after R-RM (p = 0.0302). One month after surgery, no recurrences had been reported; the risk of NRS-11 > 0 was more than double after L-IPOM (odds ratio 2.18 [95% confidence interval 0.97; 4.91]; p = 0.0606).
conclusionDespite a longer operative time, the R-RM approach was beneficial compared to L-IPOM in terms of postoperative pain, ambulatory rate, and time to return to work, with similar morbidity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40848147What 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.