Carvalho Alvaro C, Woo Kimberly P, Ellis Ryan C, Tu Chao, Miller Benjamin T, Prabhu Ajita S, Rosen Michael J, Krpata David M, Petro Clayton C, Beffa Lucas R
Department of Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Center for Abdominal Core Health, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Hernia. 2025 Mar 4;29(1):109. doi: 10.1007/s10029-025-03299-7.
Robotic retromuscular hernia repair has proven to be feasible and safe but lacks randomized data to demonstrate significant clinical benefit. The majority of current comparative studies published have been case series, retrospective studies, systematic reviews, or large registry data, all of which have significant limitations and bias (Bittner et al. in Surg Endosc 32:727-734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5729-0 , 2018; Bracale et al in Hernia 25:1471-1480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-021-02487-5 , 2021; Carbonell in Ann Surg 267:210-217. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002244 , 2018; (Warren et al. in Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11202-1 , 2024; Dewulf et al in BJS Open 6:zrac057. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac057 , 2022; Maskal and Beffa in Surg Clin N Am 103:977-991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2023.04.007 , 2023). It was only recently that the first randomized trial was conducted by Warren et al. comparing open and robotic retromuscular hernia repairs with synthetic mesh (Warren et al. in Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11202-1 , 2024). The data currently available has yielded inconsistent outcomes leaving significant knowledge gaps for clinical decision making. Reduced length of stay for robotic retromuscular repairs has been a consistently proven outcome, however, and therefore, we hypothesized that robotic retromuscular hernia repairs would be superior to open retromuscular hernia repair by reducing length of stay in the hospital by 24 h (Carbonell in Ann Surg 267:210-217. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002244 , 2018).
The Institutional Review Board at all participating sites has approved this protocol. This trial has been registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT: 05472987). The ROVHR trial is a registry-based, multicenter, double-blinded randomized trial. The primary hypothesis is robotic retromuscular hernia repairs is superior to open retromuscular hernia repairs by reducing length of stay by at least 24 h. Secondary outcomes include 30-day wound morbidity, readmissions, opioids prescribed and consumed, NRS-11 pain scores obtained daily for the 5 first days after surgery, PROMIS-3a Pain Intensity survey, and patient reported outcomes including Hernia-Related Quality of Life (HerQLes), and EuraHS. Additionally, direct operating room costs will be compared.
Based existing literature, we designed a randomized trial with a primary endpoint to determine if robotic retromuscular hernia repairs reduce length of in hospital stay by at least 24 h compared to open retromuscular hernia repairs. This study will add high-level of evidence providing evidence-based outcomes for clinical decision making.
NCT05472987. Registered on July 20, 2022.
机器人辅助肌后疝修补术已被证明是可行且安全的,但缺乏随机数据来证明其具有显著的临床益处。目前发表的大多数比较研究都是病例系列研究、回顾性研究、系统评价或大型注册数据,所有这些研究都有显著的局限性和偏差(Bittner等人,《外科内镜杂志》32:727 - 734。https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5729-0,2018年;Bracale等人,《疝》25:1471 - 1480。https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-021-02487-5,2021年;Carbonell,《外科学年鉴》267:210 - 217。https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002244,2018年;(Warren等人,《外科内镜杂志》。https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11202-1,2024年;Dewulf等人,《英国外科杂志开放版》6:zrac057。https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac057,2022年;Maskal和Beffa,《外科学临床北美》103:977 - 991。https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2023.04.007,2023年)。直到最近,Warren等人进行了第一项随机试验,比较了开放和机器人辅助肌后疝修补术加用合成补片的效果(Warren等人,《外科内镜杂志》。https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11202-1,2024年)。目前可得的数据产生了不一致的结果,在临床决策方面留下了重大的知识空白。然而,机器人辅助肌后修补术缩短住院时间这一结果已得到一致证实,因此,我们假设机器人辅助肌后疝修补术在将住院时间缩短24小时方面优于开放肌后疝修补术(Carbonell,《外科学年鉴》267:210 - 217。https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002244,2018年)。
所有参与研究的机构审查委员会均已批准本方案。该试验已在clinicaltrials.gov上注册(NCT: 05472987)。ROVHR试验是一项基于注册数据的多中心双盲随机试验。主要假设是机器人辅助肌后疝修补术在将住院时间缩短至少24小时方面优于开放肌后疝修补术。次要结局包括30天伤口发病率、再入院率、开具和使用的阿片类药物、术后前5天每天获得的NRS - 11疼痛评分、PROMIS - 3a疼痛强度调查以及患者报告的结局,包括疝相关生活质量(HerQLes)和EuraHS。此外,还将比较直接手术室成本。
基于现有文献,我们设计了一项以主要终点为指标的随机试验,以确定与开放肌后疝修补术相比机器人辅助肌后疝修补术是否能将住院时间缩短至少24小时。本研究将增加高级别的证据,为临床决策提供基于证据的结果。
NCT05472987。于2022年7月20日注册。