Nationwide Readmissions Analysis of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Population-Based Study

Introduction Minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (MISVHR) has been performed for almost 30 years; recently, there has been an accelerated adoption of the robotic platform leading to renewed comparisons to open ventral hernia repair (OVHR). The present study evaluates patterns and outcomes of readmissions for MISVHR and OVHR patients. Methods The Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) was queried for patients undergoing OVHR and MISVHR from 2016 to 2018. Demographic characteristics, complications, and 90-day readmissions were determined. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR) vs laparoscopic hernia repair (LVHR). Standard statistical methods and logistic regression were used. Results Over the 3-year period, there were 25 795 MISVHR and 180 635 OVHR admissions. Minimally invasive ventral hernia repair was associated with a lower rate of 90-day readmission (11.3% vs 17.3%, P < .01), length of stay (LOS) (4.0 vs 7.9 days, P < .01), and hospital charges ($68,240 ± 75 680 vs $87,701 ± 73 165, P < .01), which remained true when elective and non-elective repairs were evaluated independently. Postoperative infection was the most common reason for readmission but was less common in the MISVHR group (8.4% vs 16.8%, P < .01). Robotic ventral hernia repair increased over the 3-year period and was associated with decreased LOS (3.7 vs 4.1 days, P < .01) and comparable readmissions (11.3% vs 11.2%, P = .74) to LVHR, but was nearly $20,000 more expensive. In logistic regression, OVHR, non-elective operation, urban-teaching hospital, increased LOS, comorbidities, and payer type were predictive of readmission. Conclusions Open ventral hernia repair was associated with increased LOS and increased readmissions compared to MISVHR. Robotic ventral hernia repair had comparable readmissions and decreased LOS to LVHR, but it was more expensive.

P033 IMPLEMENTATION OF A ROBOTIC VENTRAL HERNIA REPAIR PROGRAM IN A EUROPEAN CENTER: RESULTS DURING THE LEARNING CURVE AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT

Aim This study aims to describe the early results after implementing a robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR) program in a European university center. Material and Methods All patients undergoing primary (PH) or incisional (IH) RVHR were included in an institutional open-label prospective quality database. Patients' baseline characteristics, intra-operative data, postoperative, and follow-up outcomes recorded from September 2018 to September 2020 were analyzed. Results Twenty-six PH and 58 IH were included; respectively, mean BMIs were 32.8±7.1 and 30.3±5.0kg/m2. Hernia resulted from median laparotomies in 69.0% of the IH patients; 5 patients (8.6%) had defects &gt;10cm in width. In the PH group, the mean total operative room (OR) time was 98.1±42.5min. Mean VAS (Visual Analog Score) was 2.5±1.7 at day 0, 61.5% of patients were ambulatory, and 38.5% stayed 1-2 nights. One (3.8%) recurrence and 1(3.8%) surgical complication (umbilical perforation) occurred with no general complications. In the IH group, 15 patients required transversus abdominis release (TAR, 25.9%). Mean OR time was 179.6±82.3min, mean VAS 1.9±2.0 at day0, 19% of patients were ambulatory, 44.8% stayed 1-2 nights and 27.6% 3-4 nights. Mean follow-up was 71.6±51.8 days. One (1.7%) postoperative complication (bleeding, embolization, no reoperation), 2(3.4%) recurrences occurred. Successful completion of an extraperitoneal (eTEP) RVHR with bilateral TAR was achieved after 18 months and 40 cases, after which we began training a second surgeon. Conclusions Implementation of a RVHR program showed promising results with acceptable operative time even during the learning curve. Postoperative outcomes suggest a potential advantage in postoperative recovery.

Image Inversion during Xi Robotic ventral hernia repair: making it even more effective

ABSTRACT Introduction: currently, there are several clinical applications for robot-assisted surgery and in the hernia scenario, robot-assisted surgery seems to have the ability to overcome laparoscopic ventral hernias repairs limitations, facilitating dissection, defect closure, and mesh positioning. Exponentially grown in numbers of robotic approaches have been seen and even more complex and initially not suitable cases have recently become eligible for it. An appropriate tension-free reestablishment of the linea alba is still a major concern in hernia surgery and even with the robotic platform, dissecting and suturing in anterior abdominal wall may be challenging. This article reports a technical image artifice during a da vinci Xi-platform robotic ventral hernia repair allowing the surgeon to establish a more familiar and ergonomic manner to perform dissection and suturing in anterior abdominal wall. Technical Report: a step by step guided technique of image inversion artifice is described using detailed commands and figures to assure optimal surgical field and ergonomics whenever acting in robotic ventral hernias repair with the da Vinci Xi-platform. Our group brief experience is also reported, showing an easy and reproducible feature among surgeons with safe outcomes. Conclusion: we consider that image inversion artifice is a simple and reproducible feature in robotic ventral hernia repair. Through a step-by-step guide, this report enables the creation of an artifice providing a comfortable operative field and allowing the surgeon to achieve its best proficiency in hernia surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: multicenter, blinded randomized controlled trial

ObjectiveTo determine whether robotic ventral hernia repair is associated with fewer days in the hospital 90 days after surgery compared with laparoscopic repair.DesignPragmatic, blinded randomized controlled trial.SettingMultidisciplinary hernia clinics in Houston, USA.Participants124 patients, deemed appropriate candidates for elective minimally invasive ventral hernia repair, consecutively presenting from April 2018 to February 2019.InterventionsRobotic ventral hernia repair (n=65) versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (n=59).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was number of days in hospital within 90 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits, operating room time, wound complications, hernia recurrence, reoperation, abdominal wall quality of life, and costs from the healthcare system perspective. Outcomes were pre-specified before data collection began and analyzed as intention to treat.ResultsPatients from both groups were similar at baseline. Ninety day follow-up was completed in 123 (99%) patients. No evidence was seen of a difference in days in hospital between the two groups (median 0 v 0 days; relative rate 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 2.19; P=0.82). For secondary outcomes, no differences were noted in emergency department visits, wound complications, hernia recurrence, or reoperation. However, robotic repair had longer operative duration (141 v 77 min; mean difference 62.89, 45.75 to 80.01; P≤0.001) and increased healthcare costs ($15 865 (£12 746; €14 125) v $12 955; cost ratio 1.21, 1.07 to 1.38; adjusted absolute cost difference $2767, $910 to $4626; P=0.004). Among patients with robotic ventral hernia repair, two had an enterotomy compared none with laparoscopic repair. The median one month postoperative improvement in abdominal wall quality of life was 3 with robotic ventral hernia repair compared with 15 following laparoscopic repair.ConclusionThis study found no evidence of a difference in 90 day postoperative hospital days between robotic and laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. However, robotic repair increased operative duration and healthcare costs.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03490266.