scholarly journals Current perspectives in robotic hernia repair

2017 ◽  
Vol Volume 4 ◽  
pp. 57-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charan Donkor ◽  
Anthony Gonzalez ◽  
Michelle Gallas ◽  
Michael Helbig ◽  
Corey Weinstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Robotic Hernia Repair

scholarly journals Erratum to: Robotic hernia repair III. English version

Der Chirurg ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrich A. Dietz ◽  
O. Yusef Kudsi ◽  
Miguel Garcia-Ureña ◽  
Johannes Baur ◽  
Michaela Ramser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hernia Repair ◽  
English Version ◽  
Robotic Hernia Repair

Reconstruction of the Abdominal Wall with Mesh I: Component Separation Techniques

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel W. Ross ◽  
B. Todd Heniford ◽  
Vedra A. Augenstein
Keyword(s):  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Abdominal Wall ◽  
Abdominal Wall Reconstruction ◽  
Operative Management ◽  
Component Separation ◽  
Transversus Abdominis ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Wound Complications ◽  
Separation Techniques ◽  
Robotic Hernia Repair

Truly complex hernias which are multiply recurrent, have active infections, loss of domain, presence of stomas, require component separation or panniculectomy, and/or have other exacerbating factors, are truly challenging to manage operatively, and the multidisciplinary operations to repair them have become known collectively as abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR). Component separation techniques and panniculectomy, to name a few, have become commonly used techniques for operative management for complex hernias. Herein, we describe the history and technical aspects of component separation, panniculectomy and other adjunct techniques in abdominal wall reconstruction. In particular, a focus on patient specific clinical outcomes such as hernia recurrence, wound complications, and quality of life has been made in regards to use and types of component separation. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive review of the state of the literature and our recommendations for AWR, for the Plastic, General, and Hernia surgeon alike. This review contains 7 figures, 1 video, 1 table, and 79 references. Keywords: ventral hernia repair, incisional hernia, abdominal wall reconstruction. component separation, transversus abdominis release (TAR), surgical site infection, advances in hernia repair, robotic hernia repair, robotic component separation, botulinum toxin

Management of Adverse Events During Laparoscopic and Robotic Hernia Repair

2018 ◽  
pp. 169-182
Author(s):  
Ciara R. Huntington ◽  
Jonathan D. Bouchez ◽  
David A. Iannitti
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Robotic Hernia Repair

scholarly journals Erratum to: Robotic hernia repair II. English version

Der Chirurg ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Baur ◽  
Michaela Ramser ◽  
Nicola Keller ◽  
Filip Muysoms ◽  
Jörg Dörfer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hernia Repair ◽  
English Version ◽  
Robotic Hernia Repair

Minimally invasive management of de Garengeot hernia with staged robotic hernia repair

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
pp. e242569
Author(s):  
Ryan B Cohen ◽  
Teena Nerwal ◽  
Stephen Winikoff ◽  
Matthew Hubbard
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Suture Repair ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Hernia Sac ◽  
Improved Outcomes ◽  
Robotic Hernia Repair ◽  
Common Technique ◽  
De Garengeot Hernia

De Garengeot hernia is a rare phenomenon describing the migration of the appendix into a femoral hernia sac. Many repair strategies have been described although an open inguinal approach with suture repair is the most common technique. Despite strong evidence that mesh limits recurrence, most forgo mesh use in the presence of appendicitis for fear of contamination. We report a case in a 68-year-old man managed completely with minimally invasive strategies. We performed a staged laparoscopic appendectomy followed by robotic hernia repair with polypropylene mesh. This is the first described two-stage minimally invasive approach and the first report demonstrating the feasibility of robotic hernia repair in the setting of de Garengeot hernia. It is our opinion that using a staged approach may encourage mesh repair by minimising the risk of implant contamination. Furthermore, we believe a fully minimally invasive technique may result in improved outcomes.

Reconstruction of the Abdominal Wall with Mesh II: Ventral Hernia Repair

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel W. Ross ◽  
B. Todd Heniford ◽  
Vedra A. Augenstein
Keyword(s):  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Abdominal Wall ◽  
Ventral Hernia ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Ventral Hernia Repair ◽  
Abdominal Wall Reconstruction ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Wound Complications ◽  
Robotic Hernia Repair

Incisional and Ventral hernia repair (VHR) is one of the most common surgical procedures in the world, and over the last two decades this field has enjoyed exponentially advances thanks to improvements in operative technique and biomechanical science. Truly complex hernias which are multiply recurrent, have active infections, loss of domain, presence of stomas, require component separation or panniculectomy, or have other exacerbating factors are truly challenging to manage operatively, and the multidisciplinary operations to repair them have become known collectively as abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR). Herein, we describe the surgical history of AWR, the current state of surgical techniques and mesh science, as well as novel areas for advancement of the field in the future. In particular, a focus on patient specific clinical outcomes such as hernia recurrence, wound complications, and quality of life has been made with regards to mesh position and selection. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive review of the state of the literature and our recommendations for AWR, for the Plastic, General, and Hernia surgeon alike. This review contains 7 figures, 3 tables, and 79 references. Keywords: ventral hernia repair, incisional hernia, abdominal wall reconstruction, mesh, pre-peritoneal hernia repair, pre-operative optimization, clinical outcomes, mesh position, surgical site infection, robotic hernia repair

scholarly journals Robotic inguinal hernia repair (rTAPP) – A series of 300 cases

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Ramser ◽  
J Baur ◽  
U Dietz
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Inguinal Hernia Repair ◽  
Standard Procedure ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
High Standard ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Robotic Hernia Repair ◽  
Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair

Abstract Objective While inguinal hernia repair using mesh is the recommended standard for most patients, minimal invasive techniques experienced a prolonged process until broad acceptance and sufficient expertise. Lately, a reluctance towards the integration of robotic hernia repair as a standard procedure is observed in Europe compared to the US. Nevertheless, robotic technology is a powerful tool for increasing quality in standardized procedures. We present a large case series of inguinal hernias repaired by robotic surgery. Methods All consecutive patients receiving a robotic inguinal hernia repair with a transabdominal approach (rTAPP) in the first 18 months (May 2018 up to October 2019) after introduction of the DaVinci Xi system at our institution were included in this study. Results Overall, 302 groin hernias in 225 patients were operated in the defined period. 77 patients presented with bilateral hernias. Mean age of patients was 58.7 years, 87.6% were men. Mean BMI 25.5kg/m2. Nearly half of all operations were teaching operations making use of the available double consoles. While in the first 6 months only 20.0% of operations were teaching procedures, the rate increased to 60.3% in the last 6 months of the observation period. While overall 35.6% of procedures were performed as day-surgery, the rate varied over the course of the study with 35.6% in the first 6 months, 46.0% in the second and 33.3% in the last 6 months. Operation time was 82.6min. (range 40-186) with 72min. (range 40-186) for unilateral repairs and 101.3min. (range 52-169) for bilateral repairs. Further subgroup analysis showed that in bilateral repairs in primary hernias teaching vs. no-teaching operations differed only marginally in time (108.9min., range 66-149 vs. 91.6min., range 52-159). Follow-up data was available for 93.8% of patients. There were no cases of recurrence; two patients experienced postoperative pain lasting more than 30 days. Seroma was observed in 8.9%, haematoma in 4.4% cases. Urinary retention occurred in 3.6% of patients, PE in 0.4%, DVT in 0.4%, epididymitis in 3.1%. Conclusion Robotic inguinal hernia repair is an outstanding and safe procedure. The operative accuracy of the system is impressive. The availability of two consoles makes it an ideal teaching tool, allowing to train residents in inguinal hernia repair, in a high standard of safety and with good outcomes.

Hernia Repair Combined With Prostatectomy

2006 ◽  
Vol 39 (24) ◽  
pp. 10
Author(s):  
JEFF EVANS
Keyword(s):  
Hernia Repair
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document