ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a single-center retrospective study in Taiwan.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Robotic-assisted surgery has emerged as an alternative to conventional laparoscopy for inguinal hernia repair; however, comparative evidence from Asian populations remains limited. This study compared the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair at a tertiary medical center in Taiwan. Methods: This single-center retrospective observational study included adults who underwent elective robotic-assisted or laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair between June 2020 and January 2023. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, hernia characteristics, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were extracted from electronic medical records. The primary outcome was postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included hernia recurrence, reoperation, 30-day readmission, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative analgesic use, and length of hospital stay. Between-group comparisons were performed using Student's t-test, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, the Chi-squared test, or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. Results: Of 105 patients screened, 58 met the inclusion criteria; 13 underwent robotic-assisted repair and 45 underwent laparoscopic repair. Robotic-assisted procedures were more frequently performed using the transabdominal preperitoneal approach, whereas laparoscopic procedures predominantly used the totally extraperitoneal approach (69.2% vs. 6.7% for transabdominal preperitoneal repair, respectively; Discussion: Robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair was associated with similar observed short-term outcomes to conventional laparoscopic repair. However, the small robotic cohort, retrospective design, group imbalance, and limited follow-up reduced the ability to detect differences in uncommon or long-term outcomes. Larger prospective studies with longer follow-up are required to clarify the potential benefits of robotic-assisted repair, particularly in complex or recurrent cases.
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.