ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robotic inguinal and umbilical hernia repair: clinical outcomes, costs, and future perspectives: a narrative review.
Review 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.
- Tailor-made approach for ambulatory open groin hernia repair: our experience of over 7000 cases.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Mapping the global landscape of robot-assisted hernia surgery research: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Mapping the scientific landscape of robotic hernia repair: a bibliometric and topic modeling analysis of thematic transitions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Article
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
Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has rapidly expanded into abdominal wall procedures, including inguinal and umbilical hernia repair. It offers improved ergonomics, three-dimensional visualization, and enhanced dexterity. However, its role in routine hernia surgery remains debatable, particularly in terms of cost-effectiveness and patient outcomes. A narrative review of recently published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized trials, and economic evaluations (2020-2025) was conducted. Evidence was synthesized to compare the clinical outcomes, perioperative metrics, and costs of the robotic, laparoscopic, and open techniques. RAS is associated with higher procedural costs, adding approximately USD 3000-5000 per inguinal hernia repair compared to laparoscopy, and total costs of USD 8000-12,000 for umbilical hernia repair. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios often exceed commonly accepted thresholds in current healthcare settings. Clinical outcomes reveal modest advantages, such as small reductions in early postoperative pain and a slightly earlier return to work, while complication and recurrence rates remain comparable to those of laparoscopy. Prolonged operative times, particularly during the learning curve, further increase the perioperative costs. Cost savings appear achievable only in high-volume centers with optimized team training. RAS represents a technological advance in hernia surgery, supported by structured educational programs and emerging innovations such as AI and augmented reality. In routine uncomplicated hernias, current evidence suggests only limited incremental benefits relative to the additional costs. Caution and selective adoption in anatomically complex or recurrent cases have been proposed, but require further validation through high-quality studies. Ongoing research, technological refinement, and reduction of system costs may progressively enhance the role of robotics in abdominal wall surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41016954What 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.