Dataset Information

Robotic Inguinal vs Transabdominal Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: The RIVAL Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Despite rapid adoption of the robotic platform for inguinal hernia repair in the US, to date, no level I trials have ever compared robotic inguinal hernia repair to laparoscopic repair. This multicenter randomized clinical trial is the first to compare the robotic platform to laparoscopic approach for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair.

Objective

To determine whether the robotic approach to inguinal hernia repair results in improved postoperative outcomes compared with traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs.

Design, setting, and participants

This multicenter, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical pilot study was conducted from April 2016 to April 2019, with a follow-up duration of 30 days in 6 academic and academic-affiliated sites. Enrolled in this study were 113 patients with a unilateral primary or recurrent inguinal hernia. After exclusions 102 remained for analysis.

Interventions

Standard laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair or robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair.

Main outcomes and measures

Main outcomes included postoperative pain, health-related quality of life, mobility, wound morbidity, and cosmesis. Secondary outcomes included cost, surgeon ergonomics, and surgeon mental workload. A primary outcome was not selected because this study was designed as a pilot study. The hypothesis was formulated prior to data collection.

Results

A total of 102 patients were included in the study (54 in the laparoscopic group, mean [SD] age, 57.2 [13.3] years and 48 [88.9%] male; 48 in the robotic group, mean [SD] age, 56.1 [14.1] years and 44 [91.6%] male). There were no differences at the preoperative, 1-week, or 30-day points between the groups in terms of wound events, readmissions, pain as measured by the Visual Analog Scale, or quality of life as measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. Compared with traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair was associated with longer median (interquartile range) operative times (75.5 [59.0-93.8] minutes vs 40.5 [29.2-63.8] minutes, respectively; P?Conclusions and relevanceResults of this study showed no clinical benefit to the robotic approach to straightforward inguinal hernia repair compared with the laparoscopic approach. The robotic approach incurred higher costs and more operative time compared with the laparoscopic approach, with added surgeon frustration and no ergonomic benefit to surgeons.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02816658.

SUBMITTER: Prabhu AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7081145 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Robotic Inguinal vs Transabdominal Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: The RIVAL Randomized Clinical Trial.

Prabhu Ajita S AS Carbonell Alfredo A Hope William W Warren Jeremy J Higgins Rana R Jacob Brian B Blatnik Jeffrey J Haskins Ivy I Alkhatib Hemasat H Tastaldi Luciano L Fafaj Aldo A Tu Chao C Rosen Michael J MJ

JAMA surgery 20200501 5

<h4>Importance</h4>Despite rapid adoption of the robotic platform for inguinal hernia repair in the US, to date, no level I trials have ever compared robotic inguinal hernia repair to laparoscopic repair. This multicenter randomized clinical trial is the first to compare the robotic platform to laparoscopic approach for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether the robotic approach to inguinal hernia repair results in improved postoperative outcomes compare ...[more]

PMID: 32186683

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:ImportanceDespite rapid adoption of the robotic platform for ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh in the United States, there is no level I evidence comparing it with the traditional laparoscopic approach. This randomized clinical trial sought to demonstrate a clinical benefit to the robotic approach.ObjectiveTo determine whether robotic approach to ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh would result in less postoperative pain.Design, setting, and participantsA registry-based, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical trial at the Cleveland Clinic Center for Abdominal Core Health, Cleveland, Ohio, completed between September 2017 and January 2020, with a minimum follow-up duration of 30 days. Two surgeons at 1 academic tertiary care hospital. Patients with primary or incisional midline ventral hernias of an anticipated width of 7 cm or less presenting in the elective setting and able to tolerate a minimally invasive repair.InterventionsPatients were randomized to a standardized laparoscopic or robotic ventral hernia repair with fascial closure and intraperitoneal mesh.Main outcomes and measuresThe trial was powered to detect a 30% difference in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11) on the first postoperative day. Secondary end points included the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Intensity short form (3a), hernia-specific quality of life, operative time, wound morbidity, recurrence, length of stay, and cost.ResultsSeventy-five patients completed their minimally invasive hernia repair: 36 laparoscopic and 39 robotic. Baseline demographics and hernia characteristics were comparable. Robotic operations had a longer median operative time (146 vs 94 minutes; P < .001). There were 2 visceral injuries in each cohort but no full-thickness enterotomies or unplanned reoperations. There were no significant differences in NRS-11 scores preoperatively or on postoperative days 0, 1, 7, or 30. Specifically, median NRS-11 scores on the first postoperative day were the same (5 vs 5; P = .61). Likewise, postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 3a and hernia-specific quality-of-life scores, as well as length of stay and complication rates, were similar. The robotic platform adds cost (total cost ratio, 1.13 vs 0.97; P = .03), driven by the cost of additional operating room time (1.25 vs 0.85; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceLaparoscopic and robotic ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh have comparable outcomes. The increased operative time and proportional cost of the robotic approach are not offset by a measurable clinical benefit.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03283982.

Project description:ImportanceUrinary catheters are commonly placed during laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair as a presumed protection against postoperative urinary retention (PUR), one of the most common complications following this operation. Data from randomized clinical trials evaluating the effect of catheters on PUR are lacking.ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of intraoperative catheters on PUR after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.Design, setting, and participantsThis 2-arm registry-based single-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at 6 academic and community hospitals in the US from March 2019 to March 2021 with a 30-day follow-up period following surgery. All patients who presented with inguinal hernias were assessed for eligibility, 534 in total. Inclusion criteria were adult patients undergoing laparoscopic, elective, unilateral, or bilateral inguinal hernia repair. Exclusion criteria were inability to tolerate general anesthesia and failure to understand and sign the written consent form. A total of 43 patients were excluded prior to intervention.InterventionsPatients in the treatment arm had placement of a urinary catheter after induction of general anesthesia and removal at the end of procedure. Those in the control arm had no urinary catheter placement.Main outcomes and measuresPUR rate.ResultsOf the 491 patients enrolled, 241 were randomized to catheter placement, and 250 were randomized to no catheter placement. The median (IQR) age was 61 (51-68) years, and 465 participants (94.7%) were male. Overall, 44 patients (9.1%) developed PUR. There was no difference in the rate of PUR between the catheter and no-catheter groups (23 patients [9.6%] vs 21 patients [8.5%], respectively; P = .79). There were no intraoperative bladder injuries. In the catheter group, there was 1 incident of postoperative urethral trauma in a patient who presented to the emergency department with PUR leading to a suprapubic catheter placement.Conclusions and relevanceIntraoperative urinary catheters did not reduce the risk of PUR after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. While their use did not appear to be associated with a high rate of iatrogenic complications, there may be a low rate of catastrophic complications. In patients who voided urine preoperatively, catheter placement did not appear to confer any advantage and thus their use may be reconsidered.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03835351.

Dataset Information

Robotic Inguinal vs Transabdominal Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: The RIVAL Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Interventions

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Trial registration

Publications

Robotic Inguinal vs Transabdominal Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: The RIVAL Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets