Skip to main content
main-content

10.06.2016 | Ausgabe 1/2017

Surgical Endoscopy 1/2017

Standard laparoscopic versus robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair

Zeitschrift:
Surgical Endoscopy > Ausgabe 1/2017
Autoren:
Jeremy A. Warren, William S. Cobb, Joseph A. Ewing, Alfredo M. Carbonell
Wichtige Hinweise
Presented at the SAGES 2016 Annual Meeting, March 16–19, 2016, Boston, Massachusetts.

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) demonstrates comparable recurrence rates, but lower incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) than open repair. Delayed complications can occur with intraperitoneal mesh, particularly if a subsequent abdominal operation is required, potentially resulting in bowel injury. Robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair (RRVHR) allows abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) and extraperitoneal mesh placement previously only possible with open repair, with the wound morbidity of LVHR.

Methods

All LVHR and RRVHR performed in our institution between June 2013 and May 2015 contained in the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative database were analyzed. Continuous bivariate analysis was performed with Student’s t test. Continuous nonparametric data were compared with Chi-squared test, or Fisher’s exact for small sample sizes. p values <0.05 were considered significant.

Results

We compared 103 LVHR with 53 RRVHR. LVHR patients were older (60.2 vs. 52.9 years; p = 0.001), but demographics were otherwise similar between groups. Hernia width was similar (6.9 vs. 6.5 cm, p = 0.508). Fascial closure was achieved more often with RRVHR (96.2 vs. 50.5 %; p < 0.001) and aided by myofascial release in 43.4 %. Mesh was placed in an intraperitoneal position in 90.3 % of LVHR and extraperitoneal in 96.2 % of RRVHR. RRVHR operative time was longer (245 vs. 122 min, p < 0.001). Narcotic requirement was similar between LVHR and RRVHR (1.8 vs. 1.4 morphine equivalents/h; p = 0.176). Seroma was more common after RRVHR (47.2 vs. 16.5 %, p < 0.001), but SSI was similar (3.8 vs. 1 %, p = 0.592). Median length of stay was shorter after RRVHR (1 vs. 2 days, p = 0.004). Direct hospital cost was similar (LVHR $13,943 vs. RRVHR $19,532; p = 0.07).

Conclusion

RRVHR enables true AWR, with myofascial release to offset tension for midline fascial closure, and obviates the need for intraperitoneal mesh. Perioperative morbidity of RRVHR is comparable to LVHR, with shorter length of stay despite a longer operative time and extensive tissue dissection.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag als Mediziner*in

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt e.Med zum Sonderpreis bestellen!
Das Angebot gilt nur bis 24.10.2021

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

Surgical Endoscopy 1/2017 Zur Ausgabe
  1. Sie können e.Med Chirurgie 14 Tage kostenlos testen (keine Print-Zeitschrift enthalten). Der Test läuft automatisch und formlos aus. Es kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Chirurgie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise