SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Optimizing robotic approach to ventral hernia repair: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis between preperitoneal versus retromuscular repair.
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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Early clinical experience with the Toumai robotic system in general surgery: a systematic review of short-term outcomes and telesurgical applications.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Predicting operative time in robotic ventral hernia repair using machine learning: a retrospective pilot study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Prehabilitation in Obese Patients with Ventral Hernia: A Narrative Review and Proposal of a Clinical Algorithm.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Predictors of Postoperative Complications After Retromuscular Incisional Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Rives-Stoppa retromuscular repair remains the reference standard for open ventral hernia repair. Advances in robotic surgery have expanded the minimally invasive options for extraperitoneal mesh placement, enabling both retromuscular and preperitoneal approaches. The robotic ventral transabdominal preperitoneal repair (Rv-TAPP), has seen increasing adoption, but comparative evidence with the robotic retromuscular techniques remains limited.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were reported in accordance with PRISMA and AMSTAR II guidelines (PROSPERO 2025: CRD420251173188). Searches of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify comparative studies evaluating robotic preperitoneal and retromuscular ventral hernia repair. Random-effects models (DerSimonian-Laird) were used to pool weighted mean differences (WMD) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsSix retrospective studies including 3704 patients (2326 preperitoneal, 1378 retromuscular) were included. Preperitoneal cases involved smaller, predominantly primary defects (mean 3.0 cm vs 6.3 cm). Operative time was significantly shorter for Rv-TAPP (WMD = -39.4 min, 95% CI -58.5 to -20.2; p< 0.001). Overall postoperative complications occurred in 7.2% vs 15.6%, (RR= 1.65, 95% CI 1.21-2.26), with wound-related morbidity also lower with Rv-TAPP (RR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.25-2.63). Recurrence rates were comparable (1.9% vs 0.5%; RR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.29-3.11).
conclusionsBoth robotic extraperitoneal approaches are safe and effective. Rv-TAPP offers shorter operative time and lower wound morbidity without increasing recurrence rates, favouring its use in small to medium-sized or primary ventral defects. Retromuscular repair remains preferred for large or complex hernias, underscoring their complementary roles in contemporary hernia repair.
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.