Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair - Update 2022 during the SARS-COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION

Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most common surgical procedures performed by general surgeons. Numerous articles have shown that robotic inguinal hernia repair is safe and effective, but also more costly than other hernia repair techniques. The robotic platform uses high-definition visualization and articulating instruments. A growing number of surgeons are using this technology to refine and obtain a critical view of the myopectineal orifice for hernia repair while lessening the pain associated with the open surgical approach. Lower insufflation pressures and good results without Foley catheterization have been reported. This report presents an update, with a focus on the past 3 years during the SARS COVID-19 pandemic, of a series of robotic, laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs by a single surgeon with extensive laparoscopic hernia experience at a single institution, along with a review of the recent current literature.

METHODS

Over 3000 laparoscopic inguinal hernia operations have been performed by the author since 1990. One hundred-fifty-eight were performed from April 2020 to November 2022, in addition to the previously reported 420 robotic TAPP (trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal) procedures performed from April 2012 to March 2020. Hospital records and follow-up care were prospectively reviewed and the patient's age, sex, American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) class and operative time were obtained. Follow-up was done at 2 weeks and 6 weeks following surgery. All patients consented to the use of their data in the study.

RESULTS

Ninety-four percent (94%) of the patients were male. The average age was 64.3 years (range 18-91). Co-morbidities included hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, prostatism and GERD, among others. BMI was between 19 and 37.1 (mean 26.1). In 23 patients (15%), an umbilical hernia repair was performed concomitantly. OR time ranged from 25 to 90 minutes (mean 51.8). Complications were uncommon and urinary retention (2.5%) was an infrequent post-operative occurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Use of a lower insufflation pressure (8-12 mm Hg) was routine. 2) Use of a structural mesh (4x6 inches) gave satisfactory results. 3) While fixation of the mesh was not necessary, fibrin sealant was used routinely. 4) Urinary retention was infrequent, and did not require pre- or intra-op Foley catheterization if the patient voided immediately prior to surgery. Finally, 5) OR time was consistently less than 1 hour. These results support the conclusion that robotic inguinal hernia repair is safe and effective.