ArticlePloS one2026
Robotic versus open component separation: A retrospective cohort and propensity score analysis of complication rates and clinical outcomes.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplex ventral hernias are a surgical challenge associated with high morbidity and healthcare costs. Component separation techniques have improved throughout the years with better outcomes, although the optimal approach remains debated. Robotic surgery has shown promising outcomes as an alternative to open repair, although data in large multicenter studies is still limited.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Adult patients undergoing component separation for ventral hernia repair were identified using CPT and ICD codes. Outcomes included 30-day surgical, wound, medical, and overall complications, as well as length of stay and readmission. Multivariable logistic regression and propensity score matching were applied to adjust for baseline differences.
resultsA total of 6,207 patients were included, from those 4,443 (71.6%) underwent open technique and 1,764 (28.4%) robotic. After propensity matching (n = 5,259), robotic repair was independently associated with significantly lower overall complication rates (4.8% vs. 19.6%, aOR 0.193, 95% CI 0.140-0.265, p < 0.001), including wound (2.2% vs. 10.2%, aOR 0.164, p < 0.001), surgical (2.9% vs. 10.0%, aOR 0.271, p < 0.001), and medical complications (2.0% vs. 7.0%, aOR 0.229, p < 0.001). Robotic surgery was also associated with shorter length of stay (1.34 vs. 3.86 days, p < 0.001) and lower readmission rates (4.4% vs. 9.1%, p < 0.001).
conclusionsRobotic component separation for ventral hernia repair is associated with lower postoperative complication rates, shorter length of stay, and fewer readmissions compared to the open approach. These benefits remained significant after multivariate analysis and propensity score matching, supporting the robotic technique as an effective strategy. Prospective studies are warranted to evaluate long-term outcomes, including recurrence, and to assess cost-effectiveness to optimize evidence-based surgical decision-making.
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.