Yuan L-H, Huang Y-W, Tung H-Y, Tsai C -H, Pen C-M, Wu C -C, Liao C -H, Ou Y -C, Yang S -D, Huang S-W, Tsai Yao-Chou
Department of Biomedical Engineering, National Cheng-Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital Yunlin Branch, Yunlin, Taiwan.
Hernia. 2025 May 23;29(1):174. doi: 10.1007/s10029-025-03364-1.
Inguinal hernia repair is a common surgical procedure, with robotic-assisted surgery increasingly adopted as a minimally invasive approach. While the da Vinci Surgical System offers advantages, its high cost motivates the search for more economical alternatives. The Senhance surgical system, a laparoscopy-based platform with reusable instruments, presents a potential cost-effective option. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and preliminary costs of Senhance and da Vinci robotic platforms in inguinal hernia repair.
This retrospective, observational study analyzed data from eight teaching hospitals using either the Senhance (n = 167) or da Vinci (n = 278) system for robotic inguinal hernioplasty (January 2019-January 2024). Propensity score overlap weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between groups. Primary outcomes were operative time (ORTIME), console time (CONTIME), and total length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included postoperative length of stay (Post LOS), intraoperative and postoperative complications, and recurrence rate.
After overlap weighting, the Senhance group demonstrated significantly shorter operative time (108.42 ± 41.32 vs. 150.50 ± 61.51 min, p < 0.001) and console time (40.95 ± 44.6 vs. 65.56 ± 63.36 min, p = 0.005) compared to the da Vinci group. There were no significant differences in intraoperative or postoperative complications, or recurrence rates between the two groups. Postoperative length of stay was also significantly shorter in the Senhance group (2.24 ± 0.69 vs. 2.63 ± 1.09 days, p = 0.007). Preliminary cost analysis showed lower out-of-pocket expenses for patients undergoing Senhance robotic hernioplasty.
The Senhance robotic system was associated with reduced operative duration and postoperative hospital stay compared to the da Vinci system in inguinal hernia repair, without increasing complications or recurrence. These findings suggested that the Senhance system may be a cost-effective alternative to the da Vinci platform for robotic inguinal hernia repair. Further studies are warranted to investigate long-term outcomes and comprehensive cost-effectiveness.
腹股沟疝修补术是一种常见的外科手术,机器人辅助手术作为一种微创方法越来越多地被采用。虽然达芬奇手术系统具有优势,但其高昂的成本促使人们寻找更经济的替代方案。森海斯手术系统是一个基于腹腔镜的平台,配备可重复使用的器械,是一种潜在的具有成本效益的选择。本研究旨在比较森海斯和达芬奇机器人平台在腹股沟疝修补术中的临床结果和初步成本。
这项回顾性观察研究分析了八家教学医院的数据,这些医院在2019年1月至2024年1月期间使用森海斯系统(n = 167)或达芬奇系统(n = 278)进行机器人腹股沟疝修补术。采用倾向得分重叠加权法来平衡两组之间的基线特征。主要结局指标为手术时间(ORTIME)、控制台操作时间(CONTIME)和住院总时长(LOS)。次要结局指标包括术后住院时长(Post LOS)、术中及术后并发症以及复发率。
重叠加权后,与达芬奇组相比,森海斯组的手术时间(108.42±41.32 vs. 150.50±61.51分钟,p < 0.001)和控制台操作时间(40.95±44.6 vs. 65.56±63.36分钟,p = 0.005)显著缩短。两组在术中或术后并发症以及复发率方面没有显著差异。森海斯组的术后住院时长也显著缩短(2.24±0.69 vs. 2.63±1.09天,p = 0.007)。初步成本分析显示,接受森海斯机器人疝修补术的患者自付费用较低。
在腹股沟疝修补术中,与达芬奇系统相比,森海斯机器人系统手术时间缩短,术后住院时间缩短,且未增加并发症或复发率。这些发现表明,对于机器人腹股沟疝修补术,森海斯系统可能是达芬奇平台具有成本效益的替代方案。有必要进行进一步研究以调查长期结局和综合成本效益。