Operating Room Set Up for Robotic Assisted Inguinal Hernia Repair

2019 ◽  
pp. 169-176
Author(s):  
Aldo Fafaj ◽  
Ajita Prabhu
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Inguinal Hernia Repair ◽  
Operating Room ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Set Up

Is Robotic-Assisted Inguinal Hernia Repair Comparable or Superior to Laparoscopic Approach?

2018 ◽  
Vol 227 (4) ◽  
pp. e20-e21
Author(s):  
Pedro P. Gomez ◽  
Guilherme S. Mazzini ◽  
Jad Khoraki ◽  
Gretchen R. Aquilina ◽  
Jennifer Salluzzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Inguinal Hernia Repair ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Robotic Assisted

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a comprehensive cost analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (10) ◽  
pp. 3436-3443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walaa F. Abdelmoaty ◽  
Christy M. Dunst ◽  
Chris Neighorn ◽  
Lee L. Swanstrom ◽  
Chet W. Hammill
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Inguinal Hernia Repair ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Unilateral Inguinal Hernia

Early outcomes of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair in obese patients: a multi-institutional, retrospective study

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 229-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramachandra Kolachalam ◽  
Eugene Dickens ◽  
Lawrence D’Amico ◽  
Christopher Richardson ◽  
Jorge Rabaza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Inguinal Hernia Repair ◽  
Obese Patients ◽  
Robotic Assisted

Outcomes after concurrent inguinal hernia repair and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 217-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher C. Kyle ◽  
Matthew K. H. Hong ◽  
Benjamin J. Challacombe ◽  
Anthony J. Costello
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Inguinal Hernia Repair ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

scholarly journals Robotic-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair after previous transabdominal prostatectomy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Dewulf ◽  
L. Aspeslagh ◽  
F. Nachtergaele ◽  
P. Pletinckx ◽  
F. Muysoms
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Inguinal Hernia Repair ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair ◽  
Bilateral Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Number Of Patients

Abstract Background Transabdominal prostatectomy results in scarring of the retropubic space and this might complicate subsequent preperitoneal dissection and mesh placement during minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair. Therefore, it suggested that an open anterior technique should be used rather than a minimally invasive posterior technique in these patients. Methods In this single-center study, a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed. All patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair after previous transabdominal prostatectomy were included in this analysis, and the feasibility, safety, and short-term outcomes of open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair were compared. Results From 907 inguinal hernia operations performed between March 2015 and March 2020, 45 patients met the inclusion criteria. As the number of patients treated with conventional laparoscopy was very low (n = 2), their data were excluded from statistical analysis. An open anterior repair with mesh (Lichtenstein) was performed in 21 patients and a robotic-assisted laparoscopic posterior transabdominal repair (rTAPP) in 22. Patient characteristics between groups were comparable. A transurethral urinary catheter was placed during surgery in 17 patients, most often in the laparoscopic cases (15/22, 68.2%). In the rTAPP group, a higher proportion of patients was treated for a bilateral inguinal hernia (50%, vs 19% in the Lichtenstein group). There were no intraoperative complications and no conversions from laparoscopy to open surgery. No statistically significant differences between both groups were observed in the outcome parameters. At 4 weeks follow-up, more patients who underwent rTAPP had an asymptomatic seroma (22.7% vs 5% in the Lichtenstein group) and two patients were treated postoperatively for a urinary tract infection (4.7%). Conclusion A robotic-assisted laparoscopic approach to inguinal hernia after previous transabdominal prostatectomy seems safe and feasible and might offer specific advantages in the treatment of bilateral inguinal hernia repairs.

scholarly journals Patient perceptions of acute pain and activity disruption following inguinal hernia repair: a propensity-matched comparison of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open approaches

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 625-632 ◽  
Author(s):  
James G. Bittner IV ◽  
Lawrence W. Cesnik ◽  
Thomas Kirwan ◽  
Laurie Wolf ◽  
Dongjing Guo
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Inguinal Hernia Repair ◽  
Patient Perceptions ◽  
Operative Approach ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Random Samples ◽  
Matched Comparison

Abstract Few publications describe the potential benefit of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair on acute postoperative groin pain (APGP). This study compared patients’ perceptions of APGP, activity limitation, and overall satisfaction after robotic-assisted- (R), laparoscopic (L), or open (O) inguinal hernia repair (IHR). Random samples of patients from two web-based research panels and surgical practices were screened for patients who underwent IHR between October 28, 2015 and November 1, 2016. Qualified patients were surveyed to assess perceived APGP at 1 week postoperatively, activity disruption, and overall satisfaction. Three cohorts based on operative approach were compared after propensity matching. Propensity scoring resulted in 83 R-IHR matched to 83 L-IHR respondents, while 85 R-IHR matched with 85 O-IHR respondents. R-IHR respondents recalled less APGP compared to respondents who had O-IHR (4.1 ± 0.3 vs 5.6 ± 0.3, p < 0.01) but similar APGP compared to L-IHR (4.0 ± 0.3 vs 4.4 ± 0.3, p = 0.37). Respondents recalled less activity disruption 1 week postoperatively after R-IHR versus O-IHR (6.1 ± 0.3 vs. 7.3 ± 0.2, p < 0.01) but similar levels of activity disruption after R-IHR and L-IHR (6.0 ± 0.3 vs. 6.6 ± 0.27, p = 0.32). At the time of the survey, respondents perceived less physical activity disruption after R-IHR compared to O-IHR (1.4 ± 0.2 vs. 2.8 ± 0.4, p < 0.01) but similar between R-IHR and L-IHR (1.3 ± 0.2 vs 1.2 ± 0.2, p = 0.94). Most respondents felt satisfied with their outcome regardless of operative approach. Patient perceptions of pain and activity disruption differ by approach, suggesting a potential advantage of a minimally invasive technique over open for IHR. Further studies are warranted to determine long-term outcomes regarding pain and quality of life after IHR.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document