• Ajita S Prabhu, Eugene O Dickens, Chad M Copper, John W Mann, Jonathan P Yunis, Sharon Phillips, Li-Ching Huang, Benjamin K Poulose, and Michael J Rosen.
• Comprehensive Hernia Center, Digestive Disease and Surgical Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: prabhua@ccf.org.
• J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2017 Aug 1; 225 (2): 285-293.

BackgroundRobotic intraperitoneal mesh placement (rIPOM) has emerged recently as an alternative to laparoscopic intraperitoneal mesh placement (LapIPOM) for minimally invasive incisional hernia repair. We aimed to compare LapIPOM with rIPOM in terms of hospital length of stay (LOS) and 30-day postoperative complications in patients undergoing incisional hernia repair within the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative.Study DesignPropensity score analysis was used to compare matched groups of patients within the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative undergoing LapIPOM vs rIPOM. The primary outcomes measure was hospital LOS and secondary outcomes were 30-day wound events.ResultsFour hundred and fifty-four (71.9%) patients underwent LapIPOM and 177 (28.1%) underwent rIPOM. The laparoscopic group had an increased median LOS (1 vs 0 days; interquartile range 3.00; p < 0.001). The risk of surgical site occurrence was higher in the LapIPOM group vs the rIPOM group (14% vs 5%; p = 0.001); however, surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention was similar between the groups (1% vs 0%; p = 1). Operative time longer than 2 hours was more common in the rIPOM group (47% vs 31%; p < 0.05).ConclusionsDespite longer operative times using the rIPOM approach, patients undergoing rIPOM had a significantly shorter LOS than LapIPOM, without additional risk of wound morbidity requiring intervention. Additional studies are necessary to identify the best candidates for the rIPOM approach.Copyright © 2017 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

19 keywords...

hide…