Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair
Despite growing popularity and potential advantages of robotics in general surgery, there is very little published data regarding robotic inguinal hernia repair. This study examines a single surgeon’s early experience with robotic TAPP inguinal hernia repair compared with laparoscopic TAPP repair in...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of robotic surgery 2016-09, Vol.10 (3), p.239-244 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 244 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 239 |
| container_title | Journal of robotic surgery |
| container_volume | 10 |
| creator | Waite, Kimberly E. Herman, Mark A. Doyle, Patrick J. |
| description | Despite growing popularity and potential advantages of robotics in general surgery, there is very little published data regarding robotic inguinal hernia repair. This study examines a single surgeon’s early experience with robotic TAPP inguinal hernia repair compared with laparoscopic TAPP repair in terms of feasibility and cost. We performed a retrospective review of 63 consecutive patients (24 laparoscopic and 39 robotic) who underwent inguinal hernia repair between December 2012–December 2014 at a single institution by a single surgeon. Data examined included gender, age, BMI, operative times, recovery room times, pain scale ratings, and cost. Patient groups were the same in terms of age and BMI. The mean operative time (77.5 vs 60.7 min,
p
= 0.001) and room time (109.3 vs 93.0 min,
p
= 0.001) were significantly longer for the robotic vs the laparoscopic patients. Recovery room time (109.1 vs 133.5 min,
p
= 0.026) and average pain scores in recovery (2.5 vs 3.8,
p
= 0.02) were significantly less for the robotic group. The average direct cost of the laparoscopic group was $3216 compared with $3479 for the robotic group. The average contribution margin for the laparoscopic group was $2396 compared with $2489 for the robotic group. Robotic TAPP inguinal hernia repair had longer operative times, but patients spent less time in recovery and noted less pain than patients who underwent laparoscopic TAPP inguinal hernia repair. The direct cost and contribution margin are nearly equivalent. These results should allow the continued investigation of this technique without concern over excess cost. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11701-016-0580-1 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1812888696</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2918714850</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-e265fc01e6f4d606dbc70bfa28b69fd02ed7e73fa17700b48a6bc745afa993603</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1LxDAQhoMoun78AC9S8KKH6kzaJulRFr9gQQ96DmmbaKRtatIK_nuz7rqC4CmTvM-8GeYl5BjhAgH4ZUDkgCkgS6EQkOIWmaFgWUrzErc3tcj2yH4IbwAFLzLcJXuUI1IucEaauesG5W1wfeJM4l3lRlsnH9qHKSStipoLtRvi2-hVH1TVuM72qk0Grwft7eh6HW9nT1ePj-eJ7V-mb_VV-96qJDLK-kOyY1Qb9NH6PCDPN9dP87t08XB7P79apHVOYUw1ZYWpATUzecOANVXNoTKKioqVpgGqG655ZhRyDlDlQrFI5IUyqiwzBtkBOVv5Dt69TzqMsrOh1m2reu2mIFEgFUKwkkX09A_65iYfJw-Slig45qJYGuKKquMWgtdGDt52yn9KBLmMQK4ikDECuYxAYuw5WTtPVaebTcfPziNAV0CIUv-i_e_X_7t-ASjnkgg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2918714850</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>ProQuest Central</source><creator>Waite, Kimberly E. ; Herman, Mark A. ; Doyle, Patrick J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Waite, Kimberly E. ; Herman, Mark A. ; Doyle, Patrick J.</creatorcontrib><description>Despite growing popularity and potential advantages of robotics in general surgery, there is very little published data regarding robotic inguinal hernia repair. This study examines a single surgeon’s early experience with robotic TAPP inguinal hernia repair compared with laparoscopic TAPP repair in terms of feasibility and cost. We performed a retrospective review of 63 consecutive patients (24 laparoscopic and 39 robotic) who underwent inguinal hernia repair between December 2012–December 2014 at a single institution by a single surgeon. Data examined included gender, age, BMI, operative times, recovery room times, pain scale ratings, and cost. Patient groups were the same in terms of age and BMI. The mean operative time (77.5 vs 60.7 min,
p
= 0.001) and room time (109.3 vs 93.0 min,
p
= 0.001) were significantly longer for the robotic vs the laparoscopic patients. Recovery room time (109.1 vs 133.5 min,
p
= 0.026) and average pain scores in recovery (2.5 vs 3.8,
p
= 0.02) were significantly less for the robotic group. The average direct cost of the laparoscopic group was $3216 compared with $3479 for the robotic group. The average contribution margin for the laparoscopic group was $2396 compared with $2489 for the robotic group. Robotic TAPP inguinal hernia repair had longer operative times, but patients spent less time in recovery and noted less pain than patients who underwent laparoscopic TAPP inguinal hernia repair. The direct cost and contribution margin are nearly equivalent. These results should allow the continued investigation of this technique without concern over excess cost.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1863-2483</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1863-2491</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11701-016-0580-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27112781</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Springer London</publisher><subject>Abdomen ; Administration, Oral ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Analgesics - administration & dosage ; Analgesics - economics ; Body mass index ; Cameras ; Capital costs ; Costs and Cost Analysis ; Female ; Hernia, Inguinal - economics ; Hernia, Inguinal - surgery ; Hernias ; Herniorrhaphy - economics ; Herniorrhaphy - methods ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Laparoscopy - economics ; Laparoscopy - methods ; Length of Stay ; Ligaments ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Minimally Invasive Surgery ; Operative Time ; Original Article ; Pain ; Pain Measurement ; Pain, Postoperative - etiology ; Patients ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic surgery ; Robotic Surgical Procedures - economics ; Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods ; Robotics ; Skin ; Surgeons ; Surgery ; Surgical Mesh - economics ; Urology ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of robotic surgery, 2016-09, Vol.10 (3), p.239-244</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag London 2016</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag London 2016.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-e265fc01e6f4d606dbc70bfa28b69fd02ed7e73fa17700b48a6bc745afa993603</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-e265fc01e6f4d606dbc70bfa28b69fd02ed7e73fa17700b48a6bc745afa993603</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11701-016-0580-1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2918714850?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21367,27901,27902,33721,33722,41464,42533,43781,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27112781$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Waite, Kimberly E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herman, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doyle, Patrick J.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair</title><title>Journal of robotic surgery</title><addtitle>J Robotic Surg</addtitle><addtitle>J Robot Surg</addtitle><description>Despite growing popularity and potential advantages of robotics in general surgery, there is very little published data regarding robotic inguinal hernia repair. This study examines a single surgeon’s early experience with robotic TAPP inguinal hernia repair compared with laparoscopic TAPP repair in terms of feasibility and cost. We performed a retrospective review of 63 consecutive patients (24 laparoscopic and 39 robotic) who underwent inguinal hernia repair between December 2012–December 2014 at a single institution by a single surgeon. Data examined included gender, age, BMI, operative times, recovery room times, pain scale ratings, and cost. Patient groups were the same in terms of age and BMI. The mean operative time (77.5 vs 60.7 min,
p
= 0.001) and room time (109.3 vs 93.0 min,
p
= 0.001) were significantly longer for the robotic vs the laparoscopic patients. Recovery room time (109.1 vs 133.5 min,
p
= 0.026) and average pain scores in recovery (2.5 vs 3.8,
p
= 0.02) were significantly less for the robotic group. The average direct cost of the laparoscopic group was $3216 compared with $3479 for the robotic group. The average contribution margin for the laparoscopic group was $2396 compared with $2489 for the robotic group. Robotic TAPP inguinal hernia repair had longer operative times, but patients spent less time in recovery and noted less pain than patients who underwent laparoscopic TAPP inguinal hernia repair. The direct cost and contribution margin are nearly equivalent. These results should allow the continued investigation of this technique without concern over excess cost.</description><subject>Abdomen</subject><subject>Administration, Oral</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Analgesics - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Analgesics - economics</subject><subject>Body mass index</subject><subject>Cameras</subject><subject>Capital costs</subject><subject>Costs and Cost Analysis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hernia, Inguinal - economics</subject><subject>Hernia, Inguinal - surgery</subject><subject>Hernias</subject><subject>Herniorrhaphy - economics</subject><subject>Herniorrhaphy - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - economics</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Length of Stay</subject><subject>Ligaments</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Minimally Invasive Surgery</subject><subject>Operative Time</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Pain Measurement</subject><subject>Pain, Postoperative - etiology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Robotic surgery</subject><subject>Robotic Surgical Procedures - economics</subject><subject>Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Robotics</subject><subject>Skin</subject><subject>Surgeons</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Mesh - economics</subject><subject>Urology</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1863-2483</issn><issn>1863-2491</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU1LxDAQhoMoun78AC9S8KKH6kzaJulRFr9gQQ96DmmbaKRtatIK_nuz7rqC4CmTvM-8GeYl5BjhAgH4ZUDkgCkgS6EQkOIWmaFgWUrzErc3tcj2yH4IbwAFLzLcJXuUI1IucEaauesG5W1wfeJM4l3lRlsnH9qHKSStipoLtRvi2-hVH1TVuM72qk0Grwft7eh6HW9nT1ePj-eJ7V-mb_VV-96qJDLK-kOyY1Qb9NH6PCDPN9dP87t08XB7P79apHVOYUw1ZYWpATUzecOANVXNoTKKioqVpgGqG655ZhRyDlDlQrFI5IUyqiwzBtkBOVv5Dt69TzqMsrOh1m2reu2mIFEgFUKwkkX09A_65iYfJw-Slig45qJYGuKKquMWgtdGDt52yn9KBLmMQK4ikDECuYxAYuw5WTtPVaebTcfPziNAV0CIUv-i_e_X_7t-ASjnkgg</recordid><startdate>20160901</startdate><enddate>20160901</enddate><creator>Waite, Kimberly E.</creator><creator>Herman, Mark A.</creator><creator>Doyle, Patrick J.</creator><general>Springer London</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160901</creationdate><title>Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair</title><author>Waite, Kimberly E. ; Herman, Mark A. ; Doyle, Patrick J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-e265fc01e6f4d606dbc70bfa28b69fd02ed7e73fa17700b48a6bc745afa993603</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Abdomen</topic><topic>Administration, Oral</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Analgesics - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Analgesics - economics</topic><topic>Body mass index</topic><topic>Cameras</topic><topic>Capital costs</topic><topic>Costs and Cost Analysis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hernia, Inguinal - economics</topic><topic>Hernia, Inguinal - surgery</topic><topic>Hernias</topic><topic>Herniorrhaphy - economics</topic><topic>Herniorrhaphy - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - economics</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Length of Stay</topic><topic>Ligaments</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Minimally Invasive Surgery</topic><topic>Operative Time</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Pain Measurement</topic><topic>Pain, Postoperative - etiology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Robotic surgery</topic><topic>Robotic Surgical Procedures - economics</topic><topic>Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Robotics</topic><topic>Skin</topic><topic>Surgeons</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Mesh - economics</topic><topic>Urology</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Waite, Kimberly E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herman, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doyle, Patrick J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of robotic surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Waite, Kimberly E.</au><au>Herman, Mark A.</au><au>Doyle, Patrick J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair</atitle><jtitle>Journal of robotic surgery</jtitle><stitle>J Robotic Surg</stitle><addtitle>J Robot Surg</addtitle><date>2016-09-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>239</spage><epage>244</epage><pages>239-244</pages><issn>1863-2483</issn><eissn>1863-2491</eissn><abstract>Despite growing popularity and potential advantages of robotics in general surgery, there is very little published data regarding robotic inguinal hernia repair. This study examines a single surgeon’s early experience with robotic TAPP inguinal hernia repair compared with laparoscopic TAPP repair in terms of feasibility and cost. We performed a retrospective review of 63 consecutive patients (24 laparoscopic and 39 robotic) who underwent inguinal hernia repair between December 2012–December 2014 at a single institution by a single surgeon. Data examined included gender, age, BMI, operative times, recovery room times, pain scale ratings, and cost. Patient groups were the same in terms of age and BMI. The mean operative time (77.5 vs 60.7 min,
p
= 0.001) and room time (109.3 vs 93.0 min,
p
= 0.001) were significantly longer for the robotic vs the laparoscopic patients. Recovery room time (109.1 vs 133.5 min,
p
= 0.026) and average pain scores in recovery (2.5 vs 3.8,
p
= 0.02) were significantly less for the robotic group. The average direct cost of the laparoscopic group was $3216 compared with $3479 for the robotic group. The average contribution margin for the laparoscopic group was $2396 compared with $2489 for the robotic group. Robotic TAPP inguinal hernia repair had longer operative times, but patients spent less time in recovery and noted less pain than patients who underwent laparoscopic TAPP inguinal hernia repair. The direct cost and contribution margin are nearly equivalent. These results should allow the continued investigation of this technique without concern over excess cost.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Springer London</pub><pmid>27112781</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11701-016-0580-1</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1863-2483 |
| ispartof | Journal of robotic surgery, 2016-09, Vol.10 (3), p.239-244 |
| issn | 1863-2483 1863-2491 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1812888696 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; ProQuest Central |
| subjects | Abdomen Administration, Oral Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Analgesics - administration & dosage Analgesics - economics Body mass index Cameras Capital costs Costs and Cost Analysis Female Hernia, Inguinal - economics Hernia, Inguinal - surgery Hernias Herniorrhaphy - economics Herniorrhaphy - methods Humans Laparoscopy Laparoscopy - economics Laparoscopy - methods Length of Stay Ligaments Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Minimally Invasive Surgery Operative Time Original Article Pain Pain Measurement Pain, Postoperative - etiology Patients Retrospective Studies Robotic surgery Robotic Surgical Procedures - economics Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods Robotics Skin Surgeons Surgery Surgical Mesh - economics Urology Young Adult |
| title | Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T16%3A01%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20robotic%20versus%20laparoscopic%20transabdominal%20preperitoneal%20(TAPP)%20inguinal%20hernia%20repair&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20robotic%20surgery&rft.au=Waite,%20Kimberly%20E.&rft.date=2016-09-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=239&rft.epage=244&rft.pages=239-244&rft.issn=1863-2483&rft.eissn=1863-2491&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11701-016-0580-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2918714850%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2918714850&rft_id=info:pmid/27112781&rfr_iscdi=true |