Results of robotic TAPP and conventional laparoscopic TAPP in an outpatient setting: a cohort study in Switzerland.

PURPOSE: Recently, robotic surgery has been increasingly performed in hernia surgery. Although feasibility and safety of robot-assisted inguinal hernia repair in an inpatient setting have been already shown, its role in outpatient hernia surgery has not yet been investigated. Thus, this study aimed to compare robot-assisted TAPP (r-TAPP) and conventional laparoscopic TAPP (l-TAPP) in an outpatient setting. METHODS: A prospective database of patients with inguinal hernia treated by l-TAPP or r-TAPP in an outpatient setting during a 1-year period was analyzed in a comparative cohort study. All patients underwent a check-up appointment with their surgeon within 3 days and 6 weeks postoperatively. Data on surgical time, perioperative complications, and postoperative pain were collected. Pain was recorded by using a Verbal Rating Scale (VRS). RESULTS: Overall, outpatient laparoendoscopic inguinal hernia repair was performed in 58 patients (29 l-TAPP; 29 r-TAPP). Mean age was 57 years (21-81), mean BMI 24.5 kg/m2 (19-33) with no differences between both groups. Most patients reported none or only a low postoperative pain level in both groups (89.6% in l-TAPP group; 100% in r-TAPP), while there was a trend for less pain after r-TAPP. In both groups, there was one case of postoperative hematoma, which was successfully treated by conservative means. No other complications occurred during follow-up in either group and there was no 30-day-readmission, no unplanned overstay or any 30-day mortality in the cohort. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted inguinal hernia surgery can be safely performed in an outpatient setting with a tendency to less pain when compared to the conventional laparoscopic technique. Cost-effectiveness and cost-coverage of outpatient robot-assisted inguinal hernia surgery must be further investigated in times of limited health cost resources and diagnosis-related medical reimbursements.

Concurrent optical and magnetic stimulation therapy in patients with lower extremity hard-to-heal wounds.

OBJECTIVE: The treatment of patients with hard-to-heal wounds represents a major multidisciplinary challenge. Therefore, the development and clinical validation of new technologies remains extremely important. The novel application of concurrent optical and magnetic stimulation (COMS) offers a promising noninvasive approach to support physiological wound healing processes, especially in hard-to-heal wounds. METHOD: In a multicentre, prospective, comparative, clinical trial, patients with hard-to-heal wounds on lower extremities of different aetiologies were treated with COMS as an adjunct to standard of care (SOC). The primary endpoint was safety; secondary endpoints were wound healing, pain and wound-specific quality of life (Wound-QoL). RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were enrolled in this study (intention to treat population (ITTP), n=40). Of these patients, 37 were included in the analysis of the primary endpoint (primary endpoint population, (PEP), n=37). A further subgroup of 30 patients was included in the analysis of the secondary endpoint (secondary endpoint population (SEP), n=30). Finally, the SEP was stratified regarding patients' responsiveness to SOC in an SOC non-responder subgroup (NRSG), n=21, and in an SOC responder subgroup (RSG), n=9. A total of 102 adverse events (AEs) were recorded, of which 96% were 'mild' or 'moderate', and 91% were either a singular or transient event. Only 11 AEs were serious and associated with inpatient treatments unrelated to the studied intervention. In the NRSG, reductions in wound size were found to be statistically significant within the different study periods. Additionally, an acceleration of the healing rate was detected between the baseline and the first four weeks of COMS treatment (p=0.041). The rate of near-complete and complete wound closure in the SEP after 12 weeks were 60% and 43%, respectively. Pain reduction across the treatment group was statistically significant (p≤0.002 for both the SEP and NRSG). The Wound-QoL score improved by 24% during the study (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: In this study, COMS treatment for patients with hard-to-heal wounds on lower extremities was a safe and effective novel treatment option, especially for patients who did not respond to SOC.