Patient-reported outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic primary ventral and incisional hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM's) are increasingly used to assess surgical outcomes in low-risk surgeries such as minimally invasive primary ventral and incisional hernia repair. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to systematically summarize the available evidence for the effect of laparoscopic versus robotic primary ventral and incisional hernia repair on PROM's.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Randomised control trials, retrospective and prospective studies were included. Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL, and two trial registers were searched. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

Of the 2728 titles screened, eight studies involving 41,205 participants were included. Return to activities of daily living, return to work day and recurrence rate were statistically better in the robotic group. Length of stay, readmission, postoperative pain, quality of life, body image, and patient satisfaction were similar in both groups. The GRADE rating of the quality of evidence was moderate for postoperative pain and low to very low for the quality of life, length of stay, recurrence and readmission.

CONCLUSION

The available data of PROM's of laparoscopic and robotic primary ventral and incisional hernia repair is scarce and highly heterogeneous, thus making it difficult to assess the superiority of the laparoscopic technique over the robotic technique. Further studies with uniform reporting of PROM's in laparoscopic and robotic primary ventral and incisional hernia repair are needed.