RESUMEN
Background: Total extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (L-TEP) allows for better dissection, lesser chance of bowel injury, and quicker operating time. However robotic groin hernia repair is currently performed only through transabdominal route as it allows for more mobility of the arms. This study is aimed at studying the feasibility and outcomes of robotic totally extraperitoneal (R-TEP). Methods: A prospective nonrandomized comparative study was conducted to compare R-TEP with L-TEP. Out of a total of 88 patients with inguinal hernia, 44 patients underwent R-TEP and other 44 patients underwent L-TEP over a period of 15 months. All R-TEP were performed with Cambridge Medical Robotics (CMR) Versius. The outcomes were analyzed over a minimum follow-up period of 6 months. Results: All patients were males with a mean age of 45.9 years. Average body mass index was 28.7. Mean docking time for R-TEP was 12.7 minutes. Overall time taken for R-TEP (mean 60.47 minutes) was significantly higher (P < .001) than L-TEP (mean 38.45 minutes). When the console time of R-TEP and overall time of L-TEP were compared, there was no significant difference (P = .053). A RCT (RIVAL Trial) conducted by Prabhu et al. showed their robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (R-TAPP) time of median 75.5 (59.0-93.8) minutes. Kimberly et al. had their overall time of 77.5 minutes and Andre Luiz et al. had a console time of 58 minutes. When we compared the data, the overall time of R-TEP is lesser compared with R-TAPP. Postoperative pain on POD-1 showed that the robotic group had significantly lower pain. There were no recurrences noted in the study period. Conclusion: With our study, we have shown that R-TEP performed using the principle of laparoscopic triangulation technique with CMR Versius is feasible and reproducible. Although the overall time is significantly more in R-TEP when compared with L-TEP, console times of R-TEP and overall times of L-TEP were very similar. Console times of R-TEP are much lesser compared with other studies on R-TAPP. R-TEP can be a better alternative to R-TAPP and can be considered at par with L-TEP. A systematic RCT would provide a better picture.