Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2026
Five-year outcomes of the PROVE-IT randomized controlled trial: Patient-Reported Outcomes of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair with Intraperitoneal Mesh.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Patient-Reported Outcomes of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair with Intraperitoneal Mesh (PROVE-IT) randomized controlled trial previously demonstrated comparable pain at 1 year postoperatively between laparoscopic (lapIPOM) and robotic (rIPOM) approaches, although with potential differences in quality of life and recurrence. We aim to report 5-year follow-up of the PROVE-IT trial.
methodsAll patients previously enrolled in PROVE-IT, a registry-based randomized controlled trial published in October 2020, were reviewed. Outcomes including hernia-specific quality of life (Hernia-Related Quality-of-Life Survey [HerQLes]), pain intensity (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS 3a]), patient-reported bulging (Hernia Recurrence Inventory [HRI]), clinical hernia recurrences, and reoperations were analyzed.
resultsMedian time to clinical follow-up was 65 months [interquartile range (IQR) 56, 71]. Patient-reported outcomes were obtained for 49 of 75 patients (26 lapIPOM, 23 rIPOM). Clinical follow-up (physical exam and/or cross-sectional imaging) was completed for 64 of 75 patients (30 lapIPOM, 34 rIPOM). Median HerQLes and PROMIS 3a scores were 92 [IQR 68, 99] and 31 [IQR 31, 31] in the laparoscopic group and 92 [IQR 78, 95] and 31 [IQR 31, 31] in the robotic group (p = 0.91 and p = 0.86, respectively). Patient-reported bulging rates were 27% (lapIPOM) and 30% (rIPOM), p = 1.00. Clinical recurrence rates were 10% (n = 3) in the laparoscopic group and 24% (n = 8) in the robotic group, p = 0.27. Of fourteen abdominal reoperations (8 lapIPOM, 6 rIPOM, p = 0.57), two laparoscopic patients required elective reoperation for recurrence and no patients required mesh excision. There were no reoperations for recurrence in the robotic group.
conclusionsIn this exploratory analysis, postoperative quality of life, pain intensity, recurrence, and reoperation rates were found to be comparable between laparoscopic and robotic IPOMs at 5 years.
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.