Robotic-assisted repair of incisional hernia-early experiences of a university robotic hernia program and comparison with open and minimally invasive sublay technique (eMILOS).

PURPOSE: With robotic surgical devices, an innovative tool has stepped into the arena of minimally invasive hernia surgery. It combines the advantages of open (low recurrence rates and ability to perform complex procedure such as transverse abdominis release) and laparoscopic surgery (low rate of wound and mesh infections, less pain). However, a superiority to standard minimally invasive procedures has not yet been proven. We present our first experiences of robotic mesh repair of incisional hernias and a comparison of our results with open and minimally invasive sublay techniques. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent robotic-assisted mesh repair (RAHR) for incisional hernia between April and November 2022 (RAHR group) and patients who underwent open sublay (Sublay group) or eMILOS hernia repair (eMILOS group) between January 2018 and November 2022 was carried out. Patients in the RAHR group were matched 1:2 to patients in the Sublay group by propensity score matching. Patient demographics, preoperative hernia characteristics and cause of hernia, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis of only midline hernia was performed. RESULTS: A total of 21 patients received robotic-assisted incisional hernia repair. Procedures performed included robotic retro-muscular hernia repair (r-RMHR, 76%), with transverse abdominis release in 56% of the cases. In one patient, r-RHMR was combined with robotic inguinal hernia repair. Two patients (10%) were operated with total extraperitoneal technique (eTEP). Robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair (r-TAPP) was performed in three patients (14%). Median (range) operating time in the RAHR group was significantly longer than in the sublay and eMILOS group (291 (122-311) vs. 109.5 (48-270) min vs. 123 (100-192) min, respectively, p < 0.001). The meshes applied in the RAHR group were significantly compared to the sublay (mean (SD) 529 ± 311 cm2 vs. 356 ± 231, p = 0.037), but without a difference compared to the eMILOS group (mean (SD) 596 ± 266 cm2). Median (range) length of hospital stay in the RAHR group was significantly shorter compared to the Sublay group (3 (2-7) vs. 5 (1-9) days, p = 0.032), but not significantly different to the eMILOS group. In short term follow-up, no hernia recurrence was observed in the RAHR and eMILOS group, with 9% in the Sublay group. The subgroup analysis of midline hernia revealed very similar results. CONCLUSION: Our data show a promising outcome after robotic-assisted incisional hernia repair, but no superiority compared to the eMILOS technique. However, RAHR is a promising technique especially for complex hernia in patients with relevant risk factors, especially immunosuppression. Longer follow-up times are needed to accurately assess recurrence rates, and large prospective trials are needed to show superiority of robotic compared to standard open and minimally invasive hernia repair.

Minimally invasive intrathoracic negative-pressure therapy and flexible thoracoscopy (FlexVATS) for patients with pleural empyema.

To determine whether a new surgical method using a flexible endoscope (FlexVATS) to perform sparing debridement and apply negative-pressure therapy without extensive decortication may be an alternative treatment option for empyema. Surgical treatment of pleural empyema is associated with considerable postoperative complications and mortality rates, and alternative treatment options are being explored to improve patient outcomes. This was a prospective case series. Seventeen consecutive patients treated with FlexVATS between February 2021 and August 2022 were included in the study. Only patients for whom FlexVATS was the first therapeutic intervention for pleural empyema were included. Treatment success, defined as infection resolution, was the primary endpoint of the study. The secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay, 90-day mortality, and empyema cavity volume reduction. Patients who had previously been treated for pleural empyema by either drainage or surgery were excluded. The trial was performed as a single-centre study at a tertiary medical centre in Germany. In total, 17 patients with pleural empyema were included in the study. The median (IQR) duration of vacuum treatment was 15 days (8-35 days). Twelve of the 17 (71%) patients were successfully treated, and a significant reduction in the empyema cavity volume was observed. 41% of the dressing changes were performed outside the operating room. Compared with a historic cohort of conventionally treated patients (decortication via VATS or thoracotomy), the 90-day mortality rates tended to be lower without reaching statistical significance. Three patients (18%) died in hospital during treatment. No negative pressure-therapy-related complications were observed. FlexVATS therapy is a promising alternative therapy for both healthy and debilitated patients with pleural empyema. Larger randomised trials are required to validate this treatment option.

Intrathoracic vacuum therapy for the therapy of pleural empyema-a systematic review and analysis of the literature.

Background: Pleural empyema is a serious and potentially deadly disease leading to a significant burden on health care systems. Conservative and surgical treatment results remain poor, with high morbidity and mortality rates. Patients with pleural empyema are often multimorbid and poor candidates for surgery. Therefore, it appears sensible to explore alternative, less invasive treatment options. Recently, the well-established vacuum sponge therapy has been adopted in the treatment of pleural infections. The goal of this systematic review was to identify the existing literature and reported results of vacuum therapy for pleural empyema. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database was performed independently by two reviewers using predefined criteria according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. In addition, abstracts from selected conference proceedings were screened and reference scanning of the search results was performed. Single case reports were excluded. Results: Fourteen studies met the selection criteria and were reviewed. A total of 165 patients were treated with vacuum therapy in the studies reviewed. 61.2% of the patients had pleural empyema secondary to thoracic surgery. In 71.5% of the patients, vacuum therapy was applied following open window thoracostomy (OWT). Mortality rates of 0-33% were reported for vacuum therapy after OWT and 0-9.3% for vacuum therapy without OWT. Length of hospital stay (LOHS) ranged from 44-217 days for patients after OWT and could not be analysed for vacuum therapy without OWT due to lacking data. Median treatment time was 7-14 days. Treatment related complications were rare overall. Success rates defined as infection resolution were high irrespective of previous treatment and cause of empyema. Conclusions: The current literature shows that pleural vacuum therapy is a promising, safe, and feasible treatment alternative to existing treatment modalities for pleural empyema. However, the evidence for vacuum therapy without OWT is poor, and further data, optimally prospective or randomised control trials comparing the conventional surgical approach of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) decortication and minimally invasive vacuum therapy, are needed.