ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted ventral hernia repair is associated with decreased length of stay and lower complication rates compared with open repair, but acquisition and maintenance of the robotic system is costly. The aim of this was study was to compare the procedure-specific cost of robot-assisted and open ventral and incisional hernia repair including cost of procedure-related readmissions and reoperations within 90 days postoperatively. METHODS: Single-center retrospective cohort study of 100 patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral hernia. Patients were propensity-score matched 1:1 with 100 patients undergoing open repairs on age, type of hernia (primary/incisional), and horizontal defect size. The primary outcome of the study was the total cost per procedure in Euros including the cost of a robotic approach, extra ports, mesh, tackers, length of stay, length of readmission, and operative reintervention. The cost of the robot itself was not included in the cost calculation. RESULTS: The mean length of stay was 0.3 days for patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral hernia repair, which was significantly shorter compared with 2.1 days for patients undergoing open repair, P < 0.005. The readmission rate was 4% for patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral hernia repairs and was significantly lower compared with open repairs (17%), P = 0.006. The mean total cost of all robot-assisted ventral and incisional hernia repairs was 1,094 euro compared with 1,483 euro for open repairs, P = 0.123. The total cost of a robot-assisted incisional hernia repair was significantly lower (1,134 euros) compared with open ventral hernia repair (2,169 euros), P = 0.005. CONCLUSIONS: In a Danish cohort of patients with incisional hernia, robot-assisted incisional hernia repair was more cost-effective than an open repair due to shortened length of stay, and lower rates of readmission and reintervention within 90 days.
ABSTRACT
Background: Negative Pressure Therapy in closed incisions (ciNPT) after surgery has shown positive effects including reduction of Surgical Site Infection (SSI) incidence. In patients undergoing elective open incisional hernia repair, however, ciNPT is not standard care, perhaps due to high-quality evidence still not provided. This study hypothesizes that this patient group would benefit from ciNPT by reducing wound complications and improving postoperative quality of life. Method: This is a multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) including a total of 110 patients allocated in a 1:1 ratio with one intervention arm and one active control arm receiving ciNPT (i.e., Prevena™) and standard wound dressing, respectively. The primary outcome is the incidence of SSI at 30 days postoperatively and secondary outcomes are 1) pooled incidence of Surgical Site Occurrence (SSO), 2) patient-reported pain and satisfaction with the scar, and 3) hernia-related quality of life. Conclusion: Patients undergoing elective open incisional hernia repair are fragile with a high risk of wound complication development. This multicenter RCT seeks to deliver the high-quality evidence needed to establish the role ciNPT must play for exactly this group with the aim of reducing SSI incidence and health economic costs, and finally improving quality of life. There are no theoretical or clinical experience of unwanted consequences of this treatment.
