ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Robotic ventral hernia repair versus non-robotic techniques: a SAGES systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic surgery is common in ventral hernia repairs (VHR). A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to evaluate robotic approaches.
methodsAnalysis was performed to compare: (1) robotic intraperitoneal underlay mesh (rIPUM) versus laparoscopic IPUM; (2) robotic extended totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) retrorectus versus open retrorectus; (3) robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (rTAPP) versus IPUM; (4) robotic transversus abdominis release (rTAR) versus open TAR.
resultsrIPUM had decreased odds of overall complications (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.09-3.78) versus laparoscopic IPUM, which had shorter operative times (mean difference 63.54 min, 95% CI 50.81-76.28). Robotic retrorectus had a shorter mean length of stay (1.0 day mean decrease, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.43), while open retrorectus had a shorter mean operative time (44.70 min mean decrease, 95% CI -63.33 to -26.07); robotic retrorectus also showed a trend toward higher overall complications (OR 2.69, 95% CI 0.99-7.32), with no significant differences in SSI, SSO, reoperation, or quality of life. rTAPP had decreased odds of overall complication (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.90), readmission (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06-0.65), surgical site infection (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.94), and shorter operative times (mean difference -15.28 min, 95% CI -22.54 to -8.01) versus IPUM. rTAR had decreased odds of overall complications (OR 0.23, 95% 0.11-0.51), Clavien-Dindo grade 2 or greater complications (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-0.91), shorter mean length of stay (LOS, 4.37 day mean decrease, 95% CI -5.79 to -2.95), lower mean estimated blood loss (90.00 ml mean decrease, 95% CI -128.55 to -51.45), and longer mean operative time (82.24 min mean increase, 95% CI 58.89-105.59) versus open TAR.
conclusionsDifferences in these VHR techniques should be interpreted cautiously given literature limited to mostly studies demonstrating high risk of bias with few comparative studies. Several robotic techniques appear to have lower morbidity rates and LOS while demonstrating longer operative times. Further research is necessary to address the paucity of high-quality comparative studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42806087What 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.