These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A comparison of robotic enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal approach versus trans-abdominal retro-muscular approach for midline ventral hernias.
    Author: Pacheco TBS, Hakmi H, Halpern R, Sohail AH, Akerman M, Weinman K, Halpern DK.
    Journal: Hernia; 2024 Oct; 28(5):1719-1726. PubMed ID: 38668808.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The evolution of midline ventral hernia repair has progressed from the open Rives-Stoppa technique to minimally invasive robotic approaches, notably the trans-abdominal retromuscular (TARM) and enhanced-view Totally Extraperitoneal (eTEP) methods. This study compares these two robotic techniques in repairing medium-sized midline ventral hernias. METHODS: A retrospective comparative study of electronic medical records from 2015 to 2021 was conducted on patients undergoing robotic TARM or eTEP at NYU Langone Hospital-Long Island. Data on demographics, comorbid conditions, surgical history, intraoperative details, hernia characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Both eTEP and TARM groups exhibited comparable outcomes regarding operative duration, hernia defect size, and overall complications. However, notable differences were observed in patients' BMI, implanted mesh area, mesh composition, and fixation techniques across the groups. The TARM group required a longer hospital stay (median: 1 day) in contrast to the eTEP group (median: 0 days). Additionally, eTEP patients indicated reduced postoperative pain scores (median: 2) compared to TARM (median: 3), with both differences being statistically significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The robotic eTEP approach is associated with lower post-operative pain scores, decreased hospital length of stay, and larger areas of mesh implantation as compared to the TARM approach. Other variables are largely comparable between the two techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]