SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robotic versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for ventral hernia: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on operative time, postoperative complications, and 12-24-month recurrence.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundMinimally invasive ventral hernia repair has evolved significantly with the introduction of robotic assistance, yet whether robotic-assisted intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair offers clinical advantages over conventional laparoscopic IPOM remains unclear. While robotic platforms provide enhanced dexterity, three-dimensional visualization, and improved ergonomics, these theoretical benefits must be balanced against longer operative times and substantially higher costs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic IPOM repair for ventral hernias.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis were prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD ID: CRD420251146940). We searched multiple databases, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and Google Scholar from inception to 8th September 2025 for randomized controlled trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic IPOM repair in adults with primary or incisional ventral hernias. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool, and evidence certainty was evaluated using the GRADE methodology. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager.
resultsThree randomized controlled trials comprising 236 patients (122 robotic, 114 laparoscopic) were included. Robotic repair was associated with significantly longer operative time (mean difference: 62.60 min, 95% CI: 50.23-74.98, p < 0.00001, moderate certainty evidence). No significant differences were observed in overall postoperative complications (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.54-2.36, low certainty due to imprecision and small study effects), length of hospital stay (mean difference: -0.02 days, 95% CI: -0.32 to 0.27, low certainty), readmission rates (OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.08-2.70, very low ), reoperation rates (OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.03-2.92, very low ), conversion to open surgery (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.22-3.83, low certainty), or hernia recurrence at 12-24 months follow-up (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.26-3.63, low certainty).
conclusionCurrent randomized evidence demonstrates that robotic IPOM repair requires longer operative time than laparoscopic repair but shows no significant differences in short-term safety outcomes or long-term efficacy. Larger, high-quality randomized trials are needed to establish definitive recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41359075What 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.