Li Junfeng, Li Shihong, Wei Lunwu, Li Huiping
Department of General Surgery, Jiangyou second People's hospital, No. 31, Juhui Road, Jiangyou City, Sichuan Province, China.
Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, the Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
BMC Surg. 2025 Jul 3;25(1):255. doi: 10.1186/s12893-025-02997-4.
To comprehensively compare the surgical outcomes of robotic ventral hernia repair (rVHR) with traditional endo-laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (lapVHR) using systematic review methods, evaluating the efficacy and safety of rVHR and providing reference for clinical applications of rVHR.
This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) list. The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Web of science, Cochrane library, Embase, Scopus, and SpringerLink. The retrieval period spanned from the inception of database until 2024. Only randomized controlled trials were included. Outcomes of recurrence, re-hernioplasty, operative time, length of hospital stay and surgical site occurrence were compared between rVHR and lapVHR.
A total of 5 studies (237 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with lapVHR, the treatment of rVHR significantly decreased re-hernioplasty (RR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.66). Additionally, rVHR significantly reduced the length of hospital stay (MD = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.71) and operative time (MD = 69.45, 95%CI: 45.76, 93.14). In addition, rVHR can reduce the recurrence rate, but it is a marginal statistical difference (RR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.19, 1.13).
Overall, both rVHR and lapVHR were effective and safe. Nevertheless, rVHR shows superiority in terms of recurrence rate and re-hernioplasty rate. More high-quality studies are warranted to validate the results of this study.
采用系统评价方法全面比较机器人腹疝修补术（rVHR）与传统腹腔镜腹疝修补术（lapVHR）的手术效果，评估rVHR的有效性和安全性，为rVHR的临床应用提供参考。
本系统评价遵循系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）清单。检索了以下电子数据库：PubMed、科学网、Cochrane图书馆、Embase、Scopus和SpringerLink。检索期从数据库建立至2024年。仅纳入随机对照试验。比较rVHR和lapVHR在复发、再次疝修补术、手术时间、住院时间和手术部位发生率方面的结果。
Meta分析共纳入5项研究（237例患者）。与lapVHR相比，rVHR治疗显著降低了再次疝修补术的发生率（RR = 0.17，95%CI 0.04 - 0.66）。此外，rVHR显著缩短了住院时间（MD = 0.48，95%CI：0.25，0.71）和手术时间（MD = 69.45，95%CI：45.76，93.14）。此外，rVHR可降低复发率，但差异无统计学意义（RR = 0.46，95%CI：0.19，1.13）。
总体而言，rVHR和lapVHR均有效且安全。然而，rVHR在复发率和再次疝修补术发生率方面显示出优势。需要更多高质量研究来验证本研究结果。
