Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background: In the 21st century, the management of groin hernias (GHs) has evolved from watchful waiting (WW) to robotic hernia repair (RHR). The present study interrogates the status of robotics in the context of current repairs and provides one author’s perspectives. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for studies comparing open (OHR) to robotic hernia repair (RHR); RHR to laparoscopic hernia repair (LHR); or OHR vs. LHR vs. RHR. The historical context was extracted from previous reviews. Results: Fifty-four studies were included in the analysis. Three techniques have withstood the test of time: OHR (tissue and mesh repairs), laparo-endoscopic (TEP and TAPP), and RHR. The literature indicates that RHR is safe and effective for the management of groin hernias. Operative times and costs remain a concern when using this technique. While the number of overall complications with RHR is similar to OHR, in a minority of cases, complications are more consequential with the robotic platform. Conclusions: RHR has emerged as an unequivocally powerful technique for the management of GHs. OHR remains the technique of choice for local/regional anesthesia, posterior recurrences, and in centers that lack other platforms. In low- and middle-income countries, OHR is the most utilized technique. Centers of excellence should offer all techniques of repair including WW.
Huerta et al. (Tue,) studied this question.