Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of RHR's efficiency and safety, in addition to comparison between open and laparoscopic techniques. METHODS: A literature review was conducted from 2000 to 2020 including studies reporting on their centre's outcomes for robotic hernial repairs. A meta-analysis was conducted. For continuous data, Mantel-Haenszel chi-squares test was used and inverse variance was used for dichotomous data. RESULTS: In total, 19 studies were included. A total of 8987 patients were treated for hernia repairs, 4248 underwent open repairs, 2521 had robotic repairs and 1495 had laparoscopic repair. Cumulative analysis of robotic series: The overall average operative time was 90.8 min (range 25-180.7 min). The overall conversation rate was 0.63% (10/1596). The overall complication rate was 10.1% (248/2466). The overall recurrence rate was 1.2% (14/1218). Readmission rate was 1.6% (28/1750). Comparative meta-analysis outcomes include robotic versus open and robotic versus laparoscopic. Robotic versus open: The robotic group had significantly longer operative times and less readmission rates. There was no difference between the two groups regarding complications, post-operative pain occurrence and hernia recurrence rates. Robotic versus laparoscopic: The robotic group had significantly longer operative times and less complications. There was no difference regarding post-operative pain occurrence, hernia recurrence rates or readmission rates. CONCLUSION: Robotic hernia repair is a safe and efficient technique with minimal complications and a short learning curve; however, it remains inferior to the standard open technique. It does, however, have a role in minimally invasive technique centres. A multicentre randomized control trial is required comparing robotic, open and laparoscopic techniques.
Qabbani et al. (2021) studied this question.