SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic inguinal hernia repair has experienced rapid adoption despite limited high-quality comparative evidence. Previous meta-analyses have mainly focused on non-randomized series, and the only synthesis restricted to RCTs included only three trials and short-term outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes all available RCT evidence across clinical, patient-reported, and surgeon-centered endpoints.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed. RCTs comparing robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in adults were eligible. Primary outcomes included overall postoperative complications, hernia recurrence, and same-day discharge rate. Secondary outcomes encompassed operative time, chronic postoperative inguinal pain, estimated blood loss, seroma, hematoma, urinary retention, readmission, quality of life, surgeon ergonomics, surgical inflammatory response, stray thermal energy, and procedural cost. Pooled risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD), or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse-variance method. Heterogeneity was evaluated with the I
resultsSeven RCTs reported in nine publications (691 patients) were included. No statistically significant differences were found in overall postoperative complications (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.49-1.17; I
conclusionsNo statistically significant differences were found between robotic and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair for any primary or secondary outcome, with low to very low certainty for all endpoints.
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.