Cargando…

Robotic TAPP Ventral Hernia Repair: Early Lessons Learned at an Inner City Safety Net Hospital

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ventral hernia repair is one of the most commonly performed general surgery procedures, and minimally invasive approaches are increasingly preferred. The physiologic repair offered by the preperitoneal approach is favorable, with reduced complications, but it remains a tec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kennedy, Michael, Barrera, Kaylene, Akcelik, Andrew, Constable, Yohannes, Smith, Michael, Chung, Paul, Sugiyama, Gainosuke
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5802768/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29472756
http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2017.00070
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ventral hernia repair is one of the most commonly performed general surgery procedures, and minimally invasive approaches are increasingly preferred. The physiologic repair offered by the preperitoneal approach is favorable, with reduced complications, but it remains a technical challenge. The robotic platform allows for enhanced instrument flexibility and ease of operation. We conducted a retrospective review of our experience with robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair (rTAPP) versus robotic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (rIPOM) at a tertiary care hospital in an urban setting. METHODS: We reviewed the records of patients undergoing minimally invasive ventral hernia repair from March 2014 through March 2017. Demographics, complication rates, and operative time were compared by t test and Chi square test, as applicable. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients met the criteria for inclusion in the study. Of those, 27 underwent ventral hernia repair with rIPOM and 36 with rTAPP, with no major intraoperative complications. There were no significant differences in demographics between the 2 groups in age, BMI, and sex. The difference in mean operative time was not significant (rIPOM 167.26 [SD 51.76] minutes vs rTAPP 158.84 minutes [SD 61.5]; P = .57), whereas mean console time was significantly different (rIPOM 70.88 minutes [SD 32.88] vs rTAPP 90.26 [SD 31.17]; P = .018). Postoperative complications occurred only with rIPOM and included urinary retention, seroma, and fever. CONCLUSIONS: rTAPP is a promising alternative to rIPOM, with reduced complications without adding significant operative time, and may allow for reduced costs.