Systematic review of robotic ventral hernia repair with meta-analysis.

Tran, E; Sun, J; Gundara, J

Systematic review of robotic ventral hernia repair with meta-analysis.

Tran, E Sun, J

Gundara, J

Permalink

Publisher:: WILEY
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: ANZ J Surg, 2024, 94, (1-2), pp. 37-46
Issue Date:: 2024-02

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (2.6 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Tran, E
dc.contributor.author	Sun, J https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0097-2438
dc.contributor.author	Gundara, J
dc.date.accessioned	2025-03-13T01:32:17Z
dc.date.available	2023-11-30
dc.date.available	2025-03-13T01:32:17Z
dc.date.issued	2024-02
dc.identifier.citation	ANZ J Surg, 2024, 94, (1-2), pp. 37-46
dc.identifier.issn	1445-1433
dc.identifier.issn	1445-2197
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/185756
dc.description.abstract	BACKGROUND: Despite being one of the most common operations performed by general surgeons, there is a lack of consensus regarding the recommended approach for ventral hernia repair (VHR). Recent times have seen the rapid development of new techniques, such as robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the currently available evidence relating to RVHR, in comparison to open VHR (OVHR) and laparoscopic VHR (LVHR). METHODS: A systematic search of the following databases was conducted: PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science. A meta-analysis was performed for the outcomes of length of stay (LOS), recurrence, operative time, intraoperative complications, wound complications, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, mortality and costs. RESULTS: A total of 39 studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, RVHR reduced LOS, intra-operative complications, wound complications and readmission compared to OVHR. Compared to LVHR, RVHR was associated with increased operative time and costs, with comparable clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is currently a lack of robust evidence to support the robotic approach in VHR. It does not demonstrate major benefits in comparison to LVHR, which is more affordable and accessible. Strong quality, long-term data is required to help with establishing a gold standard approach in VHR.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	WILEY
dc.relation.ispartof	ANZ J Surg
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1111/ans.18822
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	1103 Clinical Sciences
dc.subject.classification	Surgery
dc.subject.classification	3202 Clinical sciences
dc.subject.classification	3203 Dentistry
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Hernia, Ventral
dc.subject.mesh	Herniorrhaphy
dc.subject.mesh	Robotic Surgical Procedures
dc.subject.mesh	Operative Time
dc.subject.mesh	Laparoscopy
dc.subject.mesh	Length of Stay
dc.subject.mesh	Treatment Outcome
dc.subject.mesh	Postoperative Complications
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Readmission
dc.subject.mesh	Recurrence
dc.subject.mesh	Reoperation
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Hernia, Ventral
dc.subject.mesh	Recurrence
dc.subject.mesh	Postoperative Complications
dc.subject.mesh	Laparoscopy
dc.subject.mesh	Treatment Outcome
dc.subject.mesh	Length of Stay
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Readmission
dc.subject.mesh	Reoperation
dc.subject.mesh	Herniorrhaphy
dc.subject.mesh	Operative Time
dc.subject.mesh	Robotic Surgical Procedures
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Hernia, Ventral
dc.subject.mesh	Herniorrhaphy
dc.subject.mesh	Robotic Surgical Procedures
dc.subject.mesh	Operative Time
dc.subject.mesh	Laparoscopy
dc.subject.mesh	Length of Stay
dc.subject.mesh	Treatment Outcome
dc.subject.mesh	Postoperative Complications
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Readmission
dc.subject.mesh	Recurrence
dc.subject.mesh	Reoperation
dc.title	Systematic review of robotic ventral hernia repair with meta-analysis.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	94
utslib.location.activity	Australia
utslib.for	1103 Clinical Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.rights.license	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.date.updated	2025-03-13T01:32:15Z
pubs.issue	1-2
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	94
utslib.citation.issue	1-2

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Despite being one of the most common operations performed by general surgeons, there is a lack of consensus regarding the recommended approach for ventral hernia repair (VHR). Recent times have seen the rapid development of new techniques, such as robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the currently available evidence relating to RVHR, in comparison to open VHR (OVHR) and laparoscopic VHR (LVHR). METHODS: A systematic search of the following databases was conducted: PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science. A meta-analysis was performed for the outcomes of length of stay (LOS), recurrence, operative time, intraoperative complications, wound complications, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, mortality and costs. RESULTS: A total of 39 studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, RVHR reduced LOS, intra-operative complications, wound complications and readmission compared to OVHR. Compared to LVHR, RVHR was associated with increased operative time and costs, with comparable clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is currently a lack of robust evidence to support the robotic approach in VHR. It does not demonstrate major benefits in comparison to LVHR, which is more affordable and accessible. Strong quality, long-term data is required to help with establishing a gold standard approach in VHR.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/185756