ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robotic transabdominal preperitoneal versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh plus repair for small to medium primary ventral hernias: a propensity-matched cohort study.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond acronyms: a domain-based structural analysis of abdominal wall hernia repair techniques in the contemporary literature.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Standardization of the latero-medial preperitoneal/pretransversalis dissection in PeTEP ventral hernia repair: single-center outcomes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- How Reproducible Are Abdominal Wall Surgical Techniques? A Methodological Assessment of Technical Reporting in the Contemporary Literature.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Article
- From Laparoscopic TAPP to l-GPSpX: A Pilot Reclassification of Hernia Surgery Acronyms Using the Muysoms Nomenclature.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM +) repair is a standard approach for small-to-medium-sized abdominal wall hernias of ≤ 5 cm. However, robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair offers potential advantages in precision and postoperative recovery. We aimed to evaluate short-term outcomes in a propensity-matched cohort with at least 1 year follow-up. This retrospective propensity-matched study included patients undergoing first-time repair for abdominal wall hernias of ≤ 5 cm. After exclusions, 114 eligible patients (73 laparoscopic IPOM + , 2016-2022; 41 robotic TAPP, 2020-2024) underwent 1:1 propensity score matching, yielding 41 matched pairs. The primary endpoint was postoperative pain, while the secondary endpoints were hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, complications, and cost-effectiveness. The robotic TAPP group had longer operative times (75.2 vs. 58.6 min; p < 0.001), lower 24 h pain scores (visual analog scale, 2.4 vs. 5.8; p < 0.001), and shorter LOS (1.2 vs. 2.1 days; p = 0.002). Fewer analgesics were required in the TAPP group (mean morphine equivalent dose: 10.3 vs. 18.7 mg; p = 0.01). Complications within 1 year occurred in three patients with IPOM + (two prolonged ileus, one adhesive small bowel obstruction) and one patient with TAPP (port-site hernia; p = 0.61). Six TAPP cases converted to lateral Rives-Stoppa due to thin peritoneum. Costs were comparable between the two groups ($2486 vs. $2445; p = 0.78). For primary abdominal wall hernias of ≤ 5 cm where laparoscopic TAPP is technically infeasible, robotic TAPP repair demonstrates superior short-term outcomes and fewer complications with comparable costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41006789What 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.