» Articles » PMID: 36323978

Robotic ETEP Versus IPOM Evaluation: the REVEAL Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract

Background: For small to medium-sized ventral hernias, robotic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (rIPOM) and enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) repair have emerged as acceptable approaches that each takes advantage of robotic instrumentation. We hypothesized that avoiding mesh fixation in a robotic eTEP repair offers an advantage in early postoperative pain compared to rIPOM.

Methods: This is a multi-center, randomized clinical trial for patients with midline ventral hernias ≤ 7 cm, who were randomized to rIPOM or robotic eTEP. The primary outcome was pain (0-10) on the first postoperative day. Secondary outcomes included same-day discharge, length of stay, opioid consumption, quality of life, surgeon workload, and cost.

Results: Between November 2019 and November 2021, 100 patients were randomized (49 rIPOM, 51 eTEP) among 5 surgeons. Pain on the first postoperative day [median (IQR): 5 (4-6) vs. 5 (3.5-7), p = 0.66] was similar for rIPOM and eTEP, respectively, a difference maintained following adjustments for surgeon, operative time, baseline pain, and patient co-morbidities (difference 0.28, 95% CI - 0.63 to 1.19, p = 0.56). No differences in pain on the day of surgery, 7, and 30 days after surgery were identified. Same-day discharge, length of stay, opioid consumption, and 30-day quality of life were also comparable, though rIPOM required less surgeon workload (p < 0.001), shorter operative time [107 (86-139) vs. 165 (129-212) min, p < 0.001], and resulted in fewer surgical site occurrences (0 vs. 8, p = 0.004). The total direct costs for rIPOM and eTEP were comparable [$8282 (6979-11835) vs. $8680 (7550-10282), p = 0.52] as the cost savings for eTEP attributable to mesh use [$442 (434-485) vs. $69 (62-76), p =  < 0.0001] were offset by increased expenses for operative time [$669 (579-861) vs. $1075 (787-1367), p < 0.0001] and use of more robotic equipment [$760 (615-933) vs. $946 (798-1203), p = 0.001].

Conclusion: The avoidance of fixation in a robotic eTEP repair did not reveal a benefit in postoperative pain to offset the shorter operative time and surgeon workload offered by rIPOM.

Citing Articles

Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) versus intraperitoneal onlay Mesh (IPOM) for ventral hernia repair - an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rasador A, Balthazar da Silveira C, Ballecer C, Poli de Figueiredo S Hernia. 2025; 29(1):93.

PMID: 39954156 DOI: 10.1007/s10029-025-03271-5.


Minimally invasive intraperitoneal onlay mesh plus (IPOM +) repair versus enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (e-TEP) repair for ventral hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rasador A, Silveira C, Fernandez M, Dias Y, Martin R, Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo S Surg Endosc. 2024; 39(2):1251-1260.

PMID: 39548010 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11377-7.


Comparing procedural costs and early clinical outcomes of robotic extended totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) with intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for midline ventral hernias.

Saleh T, Kastenmeier A, Lak K, Higgins R, Goldblatt M, Tan W Surg Endosc. 2024; 39(1):604-613.

PMID: 39467884 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11319-3.


Navigating hernia sac management in minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair: to abandon or to reduce? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dias Rasador A, da Silveira C, Kasakewitch J, Lech G, Lima D, Sreeramoju P Surg Endosc. 2024; 38(12):7045-7054.

PMID: 39441355 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11323-7.


Ventral Hernia Repair With a Hybrid Absorbable-permanent Preperitoneal Mesh.

Goldblatt M, Reynolds M, Doerhoff C, LeBlanc K, Leyba M, Mallico E Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2024; 34(6):596-602.

PMID: 39382137 PMC: 11614456. DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000001327.


References
1.
Sheetz K, Claflin J, Dimick J . Trends in the Adoption of Robotic Surgery for Common Surgical Procedures. JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3(1):e1918911. PMC: 6991252. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18911. View

2.
Allison N, Tieu K, Snyder B, Pigazzi A, Wilson E . Technical feasibility of robot-assisted ventral hernia repair. World J Surg. 2011; 36(2):447-52. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-011-1389-8. View

3.
Belyansky I, Daes J, Radu V, Balasubramanian R, Zahiri H, Weltz A . A novel approach using the enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) technique for laparoscopic retromuscular hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2017; 32(3):1525-1532. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5840-2. View

4.
Stoppa R . The treatment of complicated groin and incisional hernias. World J Surg. 1989; 13(5):545-54. DOI: 10.1007/BF01658869. View

5.
Eker H, Hansson B, Buunen M, Janssen I, Pierik R, Hop W . Laparoscopic vs. open incisional hernia repair: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2013; 148(3):259-63. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.1466. View