ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Evaluation of single-port robotic initial treatment of hernias (ESPRITH study): an initial case series following the IDEAL framework.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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.
- Enhanced view/extended totally extraperitoneal plasty (eTEP) Rives-Stoppa repair versus open Rives-Stoppa repair: a single-center retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 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
- Comparative perioperative outcomes of single-port laparoscopic ArtiSential versus da Vinci SP platform for totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a multi-institutional, propensity score-matched analysis in Korea.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Da Vinci Single Port has received the CE marking for General Surgery in Europe in 2024. However, its role in hernia repair is largely unexplored. In this study, we present an IDEAL Stage 1 case series evaluating the Da Vinci SP system for hernia repair.
methodsWe report the first European case series of SP robotic hernia repair (Da Vinci SP system, Intuitive Surgical). Consecutive patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair (IHR) with concomitant umbilical hernia, or midline ventral hernia repair (EHS M1-M4), were included between October 2024 and July 2025. Inguinal repairs (TAPP/TEP) were performed via the umbilical defect, while ventral repairs employed a suprapubic extraperitoneal access. The primary outcome was intraoperative and postoperative complications; secondary outcomes included operative time, hospital stay, and 1-month morbidity.
resultsTwenty-two patients were treated (14 ventral, 8 inguinal with concomitant umbilical hernia). Median operative time was 87 min for IHR and 150 min for ventral repairs. No intraoperative complications, conversions, or additional ports were required. Median length of stay was 19.5 h; six patients (27%) required an unplanned overnight stay for pain management. Two minor complications (seroma, scrotal edema) occurred at 1-month follow-up; no recurrences or readmissions were observed.
conclusionsThis IDEAL Stage 1 case series demonstrates the technical feasibility of single-port (SP) robotic hernia repair in selected patients with inguinal and ventral hernias, with no intraoperative or early postoperative complications observed. These preliminary findings support further prospective IDEAL Stage 2-3 studies with larger cohorts, standardized techniques, and long-term follow-up to validate safety and comparative outcomes.
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.