Multicenter review of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: is there a role for robotics?

BACKGROUND: The utilization of robotic platforms for general surgery procedures such as hernia repair is growing rapidly in the United States. A limited amount of data are available evaluating operative outcomes in comparison to standard laparoscopic surgery. We completed a retrospective review comparing robotic and laparoscopic ventral hernia repair to provide safety and outcomes data to help design a future prospective trial design. METHODS: A retrospective review of 215 patients undergoing ventral hernia repair (142 robotic and 73 laparoscopic) was completed at two large academic centers. Primary outcome measure evaluated was recurrence. Secondary outcomes included incidence of primary fascial closure, and surgical site occurrences. RESULTS: Propensity for treatment match comparison demonstrated that robotic repair was associated with a decreased incidence of recurrence (2.1 versus 4.2%, p < 0.001) and surgical site occurrence (4.2 versus 18.8%, p < 0.001). This may be because robotic repair was associated with increased incidence of primary fascial closure (77.1 versus 66.7%, p < 0.01). Analysis of baseline patient populations showed that robotic repairs were completed on patients with lower body mass index (28.1 ± 3.6 versus 34.2 ± 6.4, p < 0.001) and fewer comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective data show that robotic repair was associated with decreased recurrence and surgical site occurrence. However, the differences noted in the patient populations limit the interpretability of these results. As adoption of robotic ventral hernia repair increases, prospective trials need to be designed in order to investigate the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of this evolving technique.

Distraction and proficiency in laparoscopy: 2D versus robotic console 3D immersion.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown that using robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RL) increases performance compared to conventional laparoscopy (CL) due to its mechanical advantages but have not assessed distraction as a factor. To determine whether the immersive aspect of the 3D optics in RL contributes to improved performance, we compared the outcomes of laparoscopic skills by using just the 3D optics of the da Vinci versus the conventional 2D monitor with and without distraction. METHODS: Thirty-two participants without any laparoscopic experience were randomized evenly into four groups: RL, robotic-assisted laparoscopy with distraction (RL + D), CL, and conventional laparoscopy with distraction (CL + D). Each participant performed three Fundamentals of Laparoscopy Surgery tasks [peg transfer (Task 1), circle cutting (Task 2), and suturing with knot (Task 3)] for three repetitions. For each task, the mean time and errors were recorded and analyzed statistically for each group. RESULTS: Compared to other groups, CL + D took on average 1 min longer to complete Task 1 (P = 0.001), more than 1 min to complete Task 2 (P = 0.003), and more than 2 min to complete the Task 3 (P < 0.001). On Task 2, the deviations from the pattern were shorter for RL and RL + D compared to CL and CL + D (mean 0.33 and 0.37 cm vs. 0.55 and 0.58 cm, respectively; P < 0.001). On Task 3, the deviations were also shorter for RL and RL + D compared to CL and CL + D (mean 0.23 and 0.24 mm vs. 0.61 and 0.63 mm, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: When distraction was introduced, CL performed significantly worse. This suggests that using the conventional 2D monitor does not help with blocking out distraction. For Tasks 2 and 3, which require more precision and depth perception, the groups that used the 3D optics had shorter mean deviations than groups that used the conventional 2D monitor. This suggests that even when the robotic arms of the da Vinci are removed, there are still advantages to the immersive 3D optics, especially when distraction is present. The immersive aspect of the 3D optics may help improve performance in the OR, allowing surgeons to be more focused on the case and have greater depth acuity.

Intraoperative use of fluorescent imaging with indocyanine green changes management of abdominal wall flaps during open ventral hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Wound complications including infection and necrosis remain common during complex open ventral hernia repair. Advancements or enhancements in imaging technology may abate some of these issues but requires more investigation. Laser-assisted fluorescent imaging with indocyanine green (Spy Elite, LifeCell Corporation, Branchburg, NJ) allows visualization and quantification of perfusion, facilitating management of poorly perfused tissue. METHODS: Ten patients, who underwent large or massive ventral or incisional hernia repair with biologic graft reinforcement and either perforator-sparing components separation or primary open repair, underwent intraoperative laser-assisted fluorescent imaging with indocyanine green from August 2012 to August 2013. The cases were reviewed by an independent data collector with primary outcomes of postoperative skin infection and/or abdominal wall necrosis. RESULTS: Three (30%) patients had adequate perfusion, while seven (70%) patients had inadequate skin perfusion and necessitated excision of additional tissue. Of the patients whose ischemic tissue was removed, four (57%) patients had an infection and no patients developed necrosis postoperatively. Of the patients who had no removal of additional skin, one (33%) patient developed an infection and one (33%) patients developed skin necrosis. CONCLUSION: The intraoperative use of laser-assisted fluorescent imaging with indocyanine green may change management of abdominal wall flaps, even in perforator-sparing operations. Our study series is small and cannot suggest statistical significance in the potential benefit of intraoperative imaging, but shows that up to 70% of patients may require change in management due to poorly perfused tissue flaps.