Robotic Ventral Hernia Repair: Lessons Learned From a 7-year Experience.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the outcomes of RVHR with varying prosthetic reinforcement techniques. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As a recent addition to minimally invasive hernia repair, more data is needed to establish the long-term benefits of RVHR and to identify potential predictors of adverse outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent RVHR over a 7-year period were evaluated. Robotic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (rIPOM), transabdominal preperitoneal (rTAPP), Rives-Stoppa (rRS), and transversus abdominis release (rTAR) techniques were compared. The main outcomes were 90-day FFC, and 5-year FFR, depicted through Kaplan-Meier curves stratified by repair type and date. RESULTS: A total of 644 RVHRs were analyzed; 197 rIPOM, 156 rTAPP, 153 rRS, and 138 rTAR. There was a gradual transition from intraperitoneal to extraperitoneal mesh placement across the study period. Although rTAPP had the highest 90-day FFC (89.5%) it also had the lowest 5-year FFR (93.3%). Conversely, although rTAR demonstrated the lowest FFC (71%), it had the highest FFR (100%). Coronary artery disease, lysis of adhesions, incisional hernia, and skin-to-skin time (10 minutes. increment) were significant predictors of 90-day complications. Incisional hernia was the sole predictor of 5-year recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an in-depth perspective of the largest series of RVHR. Based on this experience, rTAPP is no longer recommended due to its limited applicability and high recurrence rate. Both rIPOM and rRS offer encouraging short- and long-term outcomes, while rTAR is associated with the highest perioperative morbidity. Longer follow-up is needed to assess rTAR durability, despite a promising recurrence profile.

Are elderly patients at high risk for postoperative complications after robotic ventral hernia repair? A propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the elderly (≥65 years) and non-elderly groups regarding perioperative outcomes after robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR). METHODS: A one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to obtain balanced groups. Postoperative complications including surgical site events (SSEs) (surgical site infections [SSIs], surgical site occurrences [SSOs], and surgical site occurrence procedural interventions [SSOPIs]) were compared. RESULTS: The unmatched sample included 521 patients. Of these, 139 patients were elderly (range 65-94 years). After PSM, 98 patients were assigned to each group. Intraoperative variables were similar. The non-elderly and elderly groups experienced similar complication rates during the first 90 days. SSEs (SSIs, SSOs, and SSOPIs) did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: RVHR is safe and efficacious for patients aged 65 and over. Age alone need not be a prohibitive factor in determining patient selection for RVHR; however, it would be more beneficial to take into consideration other patient-related factors as well.