Cargando…

Robotic versus open primary ventral hernia repair: A randomized controlled trial (Robovent Trial)

BACKGROUND: The objective of the present study is to compare the outcomes open PVHR and robotic PVHR. METHODS/DESIGN: The present study will be a randomized single-blinded controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis comparing robotic PVHR to open PVHR in adult patients undergoing elective PVHR...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Douissard, Jonathan, Meyer, Jeremy, Dupuis, Arnaud, Peloso, Andrea, Mareschal, Julie, Toso, Christian, Hagen, Monika
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7186553/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32368702
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isjp.2020.03.004
_version_ 1783526974982979584
author Douissard, Jonathan
Meyer, Jeremy
Dupuis, Arnaud
Peloso, Andrea
Mareschal, Julie
Toso, Christian
Hagen, Monika
author_facet Douissard, Jonathan
Meyer, Jeremy
Dupuis, Arnaud
Peloso, Andrea
Mareschal, Julie
Toso, Christian
Hagen, Monika
author_sort Douissard, Jonathan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The objective of the present study is to compare the outcomes open PVHR and robotic PVHR. METHODS/DESIGN: The present study will be a randomized single-blinded controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis comparing robotic PVHR to open PVHR in adult patients undergoing elective PVHR with a defect ranging between 1–5 cm. Patient refusing to participate, not able to give informed consent, with history of intra-abdominal surgery contraindicating a robotic surgical approach will be excluded. The intervention will consist in laparoscopic robotically assisted trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical PVHR with closure of fascial defect and non-adsorbable mesh reinforcement. The control will be open pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical hernia repair with closure of fascial defect and non-absorbable mesh reinforcement. The primary outcome will be the incidence of wound-related complication within 1 month. The secondary outcomes will be esthetic satisfaction, pain, pain-killers consumption, general complications, costs, operative time and early hernia recurrence. DISCUSSION: Open PVHR is potentially associated to more wound-related complications, but has the advantages of cost-effectiveness, short operative time and totally extra-peritoneal repair. Laparoscopic PVHR has lower wound-related complications but implies placing the mesh in intra-peritoneal position, requires advanced laparoscopic skills, usually does not allow the closure of the defect, and can lead to excessive pain and pain-killers consumption. Robotic PVHR uses the same laparoscopic access as laparoscopic PVHR, but thanks to the extended range of motion given by the robotic system, allows defect closure, pre-peritoneal placement of the mesh and requires less technical skills. In the present randomized controlled trial, we expect to show that robotic PVHR leads to better wound-related outcomes than open PVHR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The present randomized controlled trial was registered into clinicaltrials.gov under registration number NCT04171921.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7186553
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71865532020-05-04 Robotic versus open primary ventral hernia repair: A randomized controlled trial (Robovent Trial) Douissard, Jonathan Meyer, Jeremy Dupuis, Arnaud Peloso, Andrea Mareschal, Julie Toso, Christian Hagen, Monika Int J Surg Protoc Research Paper BACKGROUND: The objective of the present study is to compare the outcomes open PVHR and robotic PVHR. METHODS/DESIGN: The present study will be a randomized single-blinded controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis comparing robotic PVHR to open PVHR in adult patients undergoing elective PVHR with a defect ranging between 1–5 cm. Patient refusing to participate, not able to give informed consent, with history of intra-abdominal surgery contraindicating a robotic surgical approach will be excluded. The intervention will consist in laparoscopic robotically assisted trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical PVHR with closure of fascial defect and non-adsorbable mesh reinforcement. The control will be open pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical hernia repair with closure of fascial defect and non-absorbable mesh reinforcement. The primary outcome will be the incidence of wound-related complication within 1 month. The secondary outcomes will be esthetic satisfaction, pain, pain-killers consumption, general complications, costs, operative time and early hernia recurrence. DISCUSSION: Open PVHR is potentially associated to more wound-related complications, but has the advantages of cost-effectiveness, short operative time and totally extra-peritoneal repair. Laparoscopic PVHR has lower wound-related complications but implies placing the mesh in intra-peritoneal position, requires advanced laparoscopic skills, usually does not allow the closure of the defect, and can lead to excessive pain and pain-killers consumption. Robotic PVHR uses the same laparoscopic access as laparoscopic PVHR, but thanks to the extended range of motion given by the robotic system, allows defect closure, pre-peritoneal placement of the mesh and requires less technical skills. In the present randomized controlled trial, we expect to show that robotic PVHR leads to better wound-related outcomes than open PVHR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The present randomized controlled trial was registered into clinicaltrials.gov under registration number NCT04171921. Elsevier 2020-04-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7186553/ /pubmed/32368702 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isjp.2020.03.004 Text en © 2020 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Research Paper
Douissard, Jonathan
Meyer, Jeremy
Dupuis, Arnaud
Peloso, Andrea
Mareschal, Julie
Toso, Christian
Hagen, Monika
Robotic versus open primary ventral hernia repair: A randomized controlled trial (Robovent Trial)
title Robotic versus open primary ventral hernia repair: A randomized controlled trial (Robovent Trial)
title_full Robotic versus open primary ventral hernia repair: A randomized controlled trial (Robovent Trial)
title_fullStr Robotic versus open primary ventral hernia repair: A randomized controlled trial (Robovent Trial)
title_full_unstemmed Robotic versus open primary ventral hernia repair: A randomized controlled trial (Robovent Trial)
title_short Robotic versus open primary ventral hernia repair: A randomized controlled trial (Robovent Trial)
title_sort robotic versus open primary ventral hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial (robovent trial)
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7186553/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32368702
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isjp.2020.03.004
work_keys_str_mv AT douissardjonathan roboticversusopenprimaryventralherniarepairarandomizedcontrolledtrialroboventtrial
AT meyerjeremy roboticversusopenprimaryventralherniarepairarandomizedcontrolledtrialroboventtrial
AT dupuisarnaud roboticversusopenprimaryventralherniarepairarandomizedcontrolledtrialroboventtrial
AT pelosoandrea roboticversusopenprimaryventralherniarepairarandomizedcontrolledtrialroboventtrial
AT mareschaljulie roboticversusopenprimaryventralherniarepairarandomizedcontrolledtrialroboventtrial
AT tosochristian roboticversusopenprimaryventralherniarepairarandomizedcontrolledtrialroboventtrial
AT hagenmonika roboticversusopenprimaryventralherniarepairarandomizedcontrolledtrialroboventtrial