No prostate? No problem: robotic inguinal hernia repair after prostatectomy.

Traditional teaching suggests that prior pelvic operations, including prostatectomy, are a contraindication to laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Despite the growing use of robotic platforms in inguinal hernia repair, there are few studies describing robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repairs (RIHR) in this patient population. This study aims to demonstrate that RIHR is safe and effective in repairing inguinal hernias in patients who had previously undergone prostatectomy. We retrospectively reviewed RIHR cases performed from March 2017 to October 2021 by a single surgeon at our university-affiliated community hospital. Cases were reviewed for preoperative considerations, operative times and complications, and postoperative outcomes. A total of 30 patients with prior prostatectomy underwent transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) RIHR with mesh. Sixteen of the 30 patients had undergone robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), while 14 patients underwent open resection. Seven of the patients had received post-resection radiation and 12 had previous non-urologic abdominal operations. When compared to all RIHRs performed over the same period, duration of surgery was increased. There were no conversions to open surgery. Postoperatively, one patient developed a repair site seroma which resolved after 1 month. Mean follow-up time was 8.0 months. At follow-up, one patient reported experiencing intermittent non-debilitating pain at the repair site and one patient developed an inguinoscrotal abscess of unknown relation to the repair. No patients reported hernia recurrences nor mesh infection. This review suggests that TAPP RIHR can be a safe and effective approach to inguinal hernia repair in patients who have previously undergone prostatectomy, including those who received radiation and those who underwent either open or robotic resections.

Feasibility of robotic-assisted minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair in patients with urologic considerations including artificial urinary sphincters and bladder herniation.

Robotic surgical technology has the potential to broaden the applicability of minimally invasive approaches into more complex, technically challenging inguinal hernia repairs. A unique patient population requiring inguinal hernia repair are those patients who either have artificial urinary sphincters (AUS) or inguinal bladder herniation (IBH). Traditionally, these patients have not been considered candidates for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs. Through this retrospective series, we aim to contribute to the growing body of literature on robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) by describing our experience with RIHR in this patient subset. We performed a retrospective chart review of RIHR cases performed from June 2017 to April 2019 by a single surgeon at our university-affiliated community hospital. Charts were reviewed for preoperative considerations, operative complications, and postoperative outcomes. A total of three patients with an AUS and six patients with IBH were included, all of whom were male. All the patients received transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) approaches, and all received placement of mesh. There were no intraoperative complications and no conversions to open surgery. Postoperatively, one patient with IBH had persistent surgical site pain that resolved after 3 weeks and one patient, also with IBH, had a surgical site seroma that resolved without further intervention. Mean follow-up time was 10.71 and 12.13 months for patients with AUS and IBH, respectively. No patients reported hernia recurrence during this time. This review suggests that the use of robotic assistance for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is safe and effective and may provide additional benefits for patients with concurrent urological considerations such as AUS and IBH.

The paralyzing effect of insurance status on throughput of acute spinal cord patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether lack of insurance is a predictor of poor outcomes and increased healthcare expenditure for SCI patients. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of trauma patients admitted with an acute, severe (AIS ≥ 3) SCI and admission score of ASIA-A to a Level 1 trauma center (2012-2016). Patient characteristics and outcomes (LOS, complications) were compared between insured and uninsured patients. Multivariable adjustment was performed using linear regression. RESULTS: Of 76 patients who met eligibility, 44 had insurance and 32 were uninsured (NOINSUR). Despite having similar ventilator days (13 vs. 12.1) and ICU LOS (20.1 vs. 16.8), the NOINSUR group had more ventilator-free days (22.3 vs 6.6; p < 0.0001), longer Stepdown Unit length of stay (10.2 vs 2.3; p = 0.0036), and a longer hospital length of stay (35.3 vs 18.7; p = 0.0062). CONCLUSION: Uninsured SCI patients face longer hospital LOS due to their insurance status and lack of funding for timely rehabilitation placement. This utilizes valuable hospital resources and puts them at risk for hospital related complications and further increased healthcare expenditures.