Robotic Enhanced-View Totally Extraperitoneal vs Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh Evaluation: 1-Year Exploratory Outcomes of the REVEAL Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with small- to medium-sized ventral hernias randomized to robotic enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) or robotic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (rIPOM) previously demonstrated comparable 30-day patient-reported outcomes. Here we report 1-year exploratory outcomes for this multi-center, patient-blinded randomized clinical trial. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with midline ventral hernias 7 cm wide or less undergoing mesh repair were randomized to robotic eTEP or rIPOM. Planned exploratory outcomes at 1 year include pain intensity (using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS 3a]), Hernia-Related Quality of Life Survey (HerQLes) scores, pragmatic hernia recurrence, and reoperation. RESULTS: One hundred randomized patients (51 eTEP, 49 rIPOM) reached a median 12-month follow-up (interquartile range 11 to 13) with 7% lost. After regression analysis adjusting for baseline scores, there was no difference in postoperative pain intensity at 1-year for eTEP compared with rIPOM (odds ratio [OR] 2.1 [95% CI 0.85 to 5.1]; p = 0.11). HerQLes scores were 15 points lower on average (ie less improved) at 1 year after eTEP repairs compared with rIPOM, a difference maintained after regression analysis (OR 0.31 [95% CI 0.15 to 0.67]; p = 0.003). Pragmatic hernia recurrence was 12.2% (6 of 49) for eTEP and 15.9% (7 of 44) for rIPOM (p = 0.834). In the first year, 2 eTEP and 1 rIPOM patients required reoperations related to their index repair (p = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Exploratory analyses showed similar outcomes at 1 year in regard to pain, hernia recurrence, and reoperation. Abdominal wall quality of life at 1 year appears to favor rIPOM, and the possibility that an eTEP dissection is less advantageous in that regard should be the subject of future investigation.

Robotic eTEP versus IPOM evaluation: the REVEAL multicenter randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: For small to medium-sized ventral hernias, robotic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (rIPOM) and enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) repair have emerged as acceptable approaches that each takes advantage of robotic instrumentation. We hypothesized that avoiding mesh fixation in a robotic eTEP repair offers an advantage in early postoperative pain compared to rIPOM. METHODS: This is a multi-center, randomized clinical trial for patients with midline ventral hernias ≤ 7 cm, who were randomized to rIPOM or robotic eTEP. The primary outcome was pain (0-10) on the first postoperative day. Secondary outcomes included same-day discharge, length of stay, opioid consumption, quality of life, surgeon workload, and cost. RESULTS: Between November 2019 and November 2021, 100 patients were randomized (49 rIPOM, 51 eTEP) among 5 surgeons. Pain on the first postoperative day [median (IQR): 5 (4-6) vs. 5 (3.5-7), p = 0.66] was similar for rIPOM and eTEP, respectively, a difference maintained following adjustments for surgeon, operative time, baseline pain, and patient co-morbidities (difference 0.28, 95% CI - 0.63 to 1.19, p = 0.56). No differences in pain on the day of surgery, 7, and 30 days after surgery were identified. Same-day discharge, length of stay, opioid consumption, and 30-day quality of life were also comparable, though rIPOM required less surgeon workload (p < 0.001), shorter operative time [107 (86-139) vs. 165 (129-212) min, p < 0.001], and resulted in fewer surgical site occurrences (0 vs. 8, p = 0.004). The total direct costs for rIPOM and eTEP were comparable [$8282 (6979-11835) vs. $8680 (7550-10282), p = 0.52] as the cost savings for eTEP attributable to mesh use [$442 (434-485) vs. $69 (62-76), p = < 0.0001] were offset by increased expenses for operative time [$669 (579-861) vs. $1075 (787-1367), p < 0.0001] and use of more robotic equipment [$760 (615-933) vs. $946 (798-1203), p = 0.001]. CONCLUSION: The avoidance of fixation in a robotic eTEP repair did not reveal a benefit in postoperative pain to offset the shorter operative time and surgeon workload offered by rIPOM.

Laparoscopic vs Robotic Intraperitoneal Mesh Repair for Incisional Hernia: An Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robotic intraperitoneal mesh placement (rIPOM) has emerged recently as an alternative to laparoscopic intraperitoneal mesh placement (LapIPOM) for minimally invasive incisional hernia repair. We aimed to compare LapIPOM with rIPOM in terms of hospital length of stay (LOS) and 30-day postoperative complications in patients undergoing incisional hernia repair within the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative. STUDY DESIGN: Propensity score analysis was used to compare matched groups of patients within the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative undergoing LapIPOM vs rIPOM. The primary outcomes measure was hospital LOS and secondary outcomes were 30-day wound events. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-four (71.9%) patients underwent LapIPOM and 177 (28.1%) underwent rIPOM. The laparoscopic group had an increased median LOS (1 vs 0 days; interquartile range 3.00; p < 0.001). The risk of surgical site occurrence was higher in the LapIPOM group vs the rIPOM group (14% vs 5%; p = 0.001); however, surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention was similar between the groups (1% vs 0%; p = 1). Operative time longer than 2 hours was more common in the rIPOM group (47% vs 31%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite longer operative times using the rIPOM approach, patients undergoing rIPOM had a significantly shorter LOS than LapIPOM, without additional risk of wound morbidity requiring intervention. Additional studies are necessary to identify the best candidates for the rIPOM approach.