Robotic TAPP inguinal hernia repair: lessons learned from 97 cases.

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.

[1]  L. Cavazzola,et al.  Robotic assisted eTEP ventral hernia repair: Brazilian early experience , 2020, Hernia.

[2]  A. Hess,et al.  Management. , 2020, Anesthesiology.

[3]  Peijing Yan,et al.  Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Between Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Cancer , 2018, Surgical innovation.

[4]  Stuart Walker.  Repair , 2018, Design Realities.

[5]  V. Patel,et al.  Nerve‐sparing in salvage robot‐assisted prostatectomy: surgical technique, oncological and functional outcomes at a single high‐volume institution , 2018, BJU international.

[6]  A. Park,et al.  Early operative outcomes of endoscopic (eTEP access) robotic-assisted retromuscular abdominal wall hernia repair , 2018, Hernia.

[7]  G. Pignata,et al.  Achieving the Learning Curve in Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair by Tapp: A Quality Improvement Study , 2018, Journal of investigative surgery : the official journal of the Academy of Surgical Research.

[8]  G. Ploussard.  Robotic surgery in urology: facts and reality. What are the real advantages of robotic approaches for prostate cancer patients? , 2017, Current opinion in urology.

[9]  The HerniaSurge Group.  International guidelines for groin hernia management , 2018 .

[10]  Joshua Peloquin,et al.  Long-term quality of life and outcomes following robotic assisted TAPP inguinal hernia repair , 2018, Journal of Robotic Surgery.

[11]  D. Edelman.  Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair , 2017, The American surgeon.

[12]  O. Kudsi,et al.  Transition from Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair to Robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Review of a Single Surgeon’s Experience , 2017, World Journal of Surgery.

[13]  Yauheniya Varabyova,et al.  The determinants of medical technology adoption in different decisional systems: A systematic literature review. , 2017, Health policy.

[14]  F. M. Oliveira,et al.  Conventional inguinal hernia repair with self-fixating mesh versus totally extraperitoneal laparoscopic repair with polypropylene mesh: early postoperative results. , 2017, Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes.

[15]  M. Shrime,et al.  Laparoscopic Versus Open Cholecystectomy: A Cost–Effectiveness Analysis at Rwanda Military Hospital , 2017, World Journal of Surgery.

[16]  M. Herman,et al.  Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair , 2016, Journal of Robotic Surgery.

[17]  Tiago Leal Ghezzi,et al.  30 Years of Robotic Surgery , 2016, World journal of surgery.

[18]  A. Agarwal,et al.  Current trends in laparoscopic groin hernia repair: A review. , 2015, World journal of clinical cases.

[19]  A. Gonzalez,et al.  Robotic inguinal hernia repair , 2015, Journal of surgical oncology.

[20]  L. Cavazzola,et al.  Inguinal hernia repair: can one identify the three main nerves of the region? , 2015, Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes.

[21]  G. Fried,et al.  A survey of general surgeons regarding laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: practice patterns, barriers, and educational needs , 2015, Hernia.

[22]  M. Mahmoudieh,et al.  Mesh fixation in TAPP laparoscopic hernia repair: introduction of a new method in a prospective randomized trial , 2014, Surgical Endoscopy.

[23]  Paolo Melillo,et al.  Which is the best laparoscopic approach for inguinal hernia repair: TEP or TAPP? A systematic review of the literature with a network meta-analysis , 2012, Surgical Endoscopy.

[24]  D. Lomanto,et al.  Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia , 2012, Surgical Endoscopy.

[25]  R. Fitzgibbons,et al.  Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal Hernia [International Endohernia Society (IEHS)] , 2011, Surgical Endoscopy.

[26]  C Fraser,et al.  Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation. , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[27]  C. Davis,et al.  Laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia using a preperitoneal approach: a preliminary report. , 1992, Surgical laparoscopy & endoscopy.