ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Pain and quality of life outcomes following robotic and laparoscopic repair of small-mid sized ventral hernias: insights from the aspire india study.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVentral hernia repair (VHR) is a common general surgical procedure. While robotic VHR (RVHR) has shown advantages in large, complex hernias, comparative evidence with laparoscopic VHR (LVHR) for smaller defects is limited.
methodsWe conducted a prospective, real-world evidence study across 12 centers in India. Adults aged 18–65 years undergoing primary or incisional VHR with a defect ≤ 5 cm requiring mesh placement were included. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain and analgesic use within 14 days; secondary outcomes included quality of life (QoL), hospital stay, and perioperative complications.
resultsA total of 200 patients (101 RVHR, 99 LVHR) were analyzed, with comparable baseline characteristics. Defect size was larger in the RVHR group (p < 0.001). Median operative time was longer in RVHR (p < 0.001), while post-anesthesia care unit stay was shorter (p = 0.0026). RVHR was associated with faster recovery, including earlier return to daily activities (median 5 vs. 7 days, p < 0.001), fewer analgesic doses (2.55 ± 0.97 vs. 3.25 ± 1.55, p < 0.001), and shorter work restrictions (14 vs. 30 days, p = 0.0042). Pain outcomes favored RVHR, with consistently lower Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores, greater improvement in PROMIS pain intensity scores at day 14 (p = 0.0072), and more patients reporting low pain intensity (51.5% vs. 27.4%, p = 0.001). QoL improved significantly in RVHR, with higher EQ-5D-3L index and VAS gains at day 14 and 30 (all p < 0.01). Complication rates were low and comparable.
conclusionCompared with LVHR, RVHR offered faster recovery, less pain, reduced analgesic use, and better early QoL, supporting its feasibility and short-term advantages.
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.