Robotic vs Open Lateral Hernia Repair: A Multicenter Propensity Score–Matched Analysis of 30-day Outcomes

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Lateral ventral hernia repair (LVHR) is a challenging surgical dilemma due to location, different anatomical considerations, and low volume of cases. Our study aims to compare and assess early 30-day outcomes between open LVHR (oLVHR) and robotic-assisted LVHR (rLVHR) approach. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) was performed to include all adult patients who underwent elective LVHR based on European Hernia Society classification. A 1:1 propensity score match (PSM) analysis was conducted for balanced groups. Univariate analysis was performed to compare the 2 groups (oLVHR and rLVHR) across preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative timeframes. RESULTS: ACHQC database identified 2,569 LVHR patients. A PSM analysis stratified 665 patients to each oLVHR and rLVHR group. Median length of stay is higher in the oLVHR 3 days (interquartile range [IQR] 1 to 5) vs rLVHR 1 day (IQR 0 to 2; p < 0.001). The surgical site infection rate was higher in the oLVHR 3% vs 1% (p = 0.006). Surgical site occurrence (SSO) such as wound cellulitis was also found at a higher rate in the oLVHR 21% vs the rLVHR 0% (p < 0.001). Seroma rate was higher in the rLVHR (6.5% vs 5.6%, p < 0.001). oLVHR had 18% postoperative complication compared with rLVHR 12% (p < 0.001). There was no difference in quality-of-life measures (HerQLes and PROMIS pain 3a surveys) between groups at 30 days and 1 year. CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted LVHR is safe with decreased length of stay and SSO compared with the conventional open approach. However, it does carry a higher seroma rate with no clinical significance.