Robotic TAPP Inguinal Hernia Repair: Lessons Learned from 97 Cases

Overview

Journal Rev Col Bras Cir

Specialty General Surgery

Date 2021 Feb 3

PMID 33533825

Citations 12

Authors

Andre Luiz Gioia Morrell

Alexander Charles Morrell Junior

Jose Mauricio Freitas Mendes

Allan Gioia Morrell

Alexander Morrell

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair has proven advantages over open procedures including less pain and earlier return to normal activity. Robotic surgery adds ergonomics, a three-dimensional high definition camera and articulating instruments overcoming some laparoscopic limitations. We aimed to report the outcomes of the early experience of over 97 robotic inguinal hernia repairs performed by a referred surgical group in Brazil.

Methods: a review of a prospective mantined database was conducted in patients submitted to robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repairs between March 2016 and February 2020. Descriptive statistics were performed. Surgical outcomes data and patient follow-ups are reported.

Results: retrospective chart review identified 97 patients submitted to robotic TAPP inguinal hernia repair. Mean age was 36.4 years, with median BMI of 26.9 kg/m2. Mean console time was 58 min (range 40-150) and patients were discharged within 24 hours of their stay in a majority of cases. Mesh was placed in all procedures and there were no conversion rates. Complications were low grade and no recurrence was seen after a mean follow-up of 642 days.

Conclusion: this study represents to-date the first brazilian case series of robotic TAPP inguinal hernia repair. Our results encourage that robotic assisted TAPP inguinal hernia repair appears to be technically feasible and safe in experienced hands, with good outcomes achieving high health-related quality of life and low recurrence rates in the short and long term.

Citing Articles

Clinical outcomes from robotic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair in patients under and over 70 years old: a single institution retrospective cohort study with a comprehensive systematic review on behalf of TROGSS - The Robotic....

Rivero-Moreno Y, Goyal A, Redden-Chirinos S, Bulut H, Dominguez-Profeta R, Munnangi P Aging Clin Exp Res. 2024; 37(1):3.

PMID: 39718673 PMC: 11668831. DOI: 10.1007/s40520-024-02890-9.

Safety and feasibility of single-incision robotic totally extra-peritoneal repair for inguinal hernia using the da Vinci Xi platform: a single-center prospective pilot study.

Lee K, Lee J, Oh S Hernia. 2024; 29(1):25.

PMID: 39560800 DOI: 10.1007/s10029-024-03188-5.

From Meshes to Minimally Invasive Techniques: A Comprehensive Review of Modern Hernia Repair Approaches.

Hatewar A, Mahakalkar C, Kshirsagar S, Ram Sohan P, Dixit S, Bikkumalla S Cureus. 2024; 16(8):e66206.

PMID: 39233930 PMC: 11374351. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.66206.

Clinical application of the dissection of the preperitoneal space without electrocoagulation in laparoscopic transperitoneal inguinal hernia repair throughout of the whole process.

Xu E, Wang H, Mao Z Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2024; 19(1):42-51.

PMID: 38974761 PMC: 11223535. DOI: 10.5114/wiitm.2024.134832.

Meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair for inguinal hernia.

Li X, Li Y, Dong H, Wang D, Wei J PLoS One. 2024; 19(2):e0298989.

PMID: 38408054 PMC: 10896538. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298989.

References

Arregui M, Davis C, Yucel O, Nagan R . Laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia using a preperitoneal approach: a preliminary report. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1992; 2(1):53-8. View

Trevisonno M, Kaneva P, Watanabe Y, Fried G, Feldman L, Lebedeva E . A survey of general surgeons regarding laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: practice patterns, barriers, and educational needs. Hernia. 2014; 19(5):719-24. DOI: 10.1007/s10029-014-1287-8. View

Zhu X, Yan P, Yao L, Liu R, Wu D, Du B . Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Between Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Cancer. Surg Innov. 2018; 26(1):57-65. DOI: 10.1177/1553350618797822. View

Ploussard G . Robotic surgery in urology: facts and reality. What are the real advantages of robotic approaches for prostate cancer patients?. Curr Opin Urol. 2017; 28(2):153-158. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000470. View

Machado Grossi J, Cavazzola L, Breigeiron R . Inguinal hernia repair: can one identify the three main nerves of the region?. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2015; 42(3):149-53. DOI: 10.1590/0100-69912015003004. View

Ghezzi T, Corleta O . 30 Years of Robotic Surgery. World J Surg. 2016; 40(10):2550-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-016-3543-9. View

Bittner R, Arregui M, Bisgaard T, Dudai M, Ferzli G, Fitzgibbons R . Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia [International Endohernia Society (IEHS)]. Surg Endosc. 2011; 25(9):2773-843. PMC: 3160575. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-011-1799-6. View

Kleidari B, Mahmoudieh M, Yaribakht M, Homaei Z . Mesh fixation in TAPP laparoscopic hernia repair: introduction of a new method in a prospective randomized trial. Surg Endosc. 2013; 28(2):531-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-3198-7. View

Iraniha A, Peloquin J . Long-term quality of life and outcomes following robotic assisted TAPP inguinal hernia repair. J Robot Surg. 2017; 12(2):261-269. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-017-0727-8. View

10.

Bracale U, Merola G, Sciuto A, Cavallaro G, Andreuccetti J, Pignata G . Achieving the Learning Curve in Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair by Tapp: A Quality Improvement Study. J Invest Surg. 2018; 32(8):738-745. DOI: 10.1080/08941939.2018.1468944. View

11.

Morrell A, Morrell A, Cavazzola L, Pereira G, Mendes J, Abdalla R . Robotic assisted eTEP ventral hernia repair: Brazilian early experience. Hernia. 2020; 25(3):765-774. DOI: 10.1007/s10029-020-02233-3. View

12.

Waite K, Herman M, Doyle P . Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair. J Robot Surg. 2016; 10(3):239-44. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-016-0580-1. View

13.

Varabyova Y, Blankart C, Greer A, Schreyogg J . The determinants of medical technology adoption in different decisional systems: A systematic literature review. Health Policy. 2017; 121(3):230-242. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.01.005. View

14.

Silverstein A, Costas-Chavarri A, Gakwaya M, Lule J, Mukhopadhyay S, Meara J . Laparoscopic Versus Open Cholecystectomy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis at Rwanda Military Hospital. World J Surg. 2016; 41(5):1225-1233. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-016-3851-0. View

15.

Belyansky I, Zahiri H, Sanford Z, Weltz A, Park A . Early operative outcomes of endoscopic (eTEP access) robotic-assisted retromuscular abdominal wall hernia repair. Hernia. 2018; 22(5):837-847. DOI: 10.1007/s10029-018-1795-z. View

16.

Pahwa H, Kumar A, Agarwal P, Agarwal A . Current trends in laparoscopic groin hernia repair: A review. World J Clin Cases. 2015; 3(9):789-92. PMC: 4568528. DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v3.i9.789. View

17.

Escobar Dominguez J, Gonzalez A, Donkor C . Robotic inguinal hernia repair. J Surg Oncol. 2015; 112(3):310-4. DOI: 10.1002/jso.23905. View

18.

Kudsi O, McCarty J, Paluvoi N, Mabardy A . Transition from Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair to Robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Review of a Single Surgeon's Experience. World J Surg. 2017; 41(9):2251-2257. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-017-3998-3. View

19.

. International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia. 2018; 22(1):1-165. PMC: 5809582. DOI: 10.1007/s10029-017-1668-x. View

20.

Bonet X, Ogaya-Pinies G, Woodlief T, Hernandez-Cardona E, Ganapathi H, Rogers T . Nerve-sparing in salvage robot-assisted prostatectomy: surgical technique, oncological and functional outcomes at a single high-volume institution. BJU Int. 2018; 122(5):837-844. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14517. View