Transition from Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair to Robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Review of a Single Surgeon’s Experience
There is a paucity of literature comparing laparoscopic to robotic inguinal hernia repair. We present a single surgeon's transition from laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (L-TEP) to robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (R-TAPP) inguinal hernia repair and compare outcomes from the two approaches.
This retrospective review and analysis of prospectively collected data compare outcomes during the transition from L-TEP to R-TAPP inguinal hernia repair by a single surgeon at one institution. Operating times and surgical outcomes and complications are analyzed. All consecutive L-TEP cases from November 2012 to August 2014 and all consecutive R-TAPP cases from March 2013 to October 2015 were included in the analysis.
A total of 157 and 118 patients underwent L-TEP and R-TAPP inguinal hernia repair, respectively. The groups were similar regarding demographics and ASA class. A significantly higher number of complex cases were performed in the R-TAPP group compared to L-TEP group (n = 11 vs. n = 1, p = 0.0001). Mean surgical times were nearly identical (69.12 ± 35.13 min, R-TAPP; 69.05 ± 26.31, L-TEP) as were intraoperative and postoperative complication rates-despite the significantly higher number of complex cases in the R-TAPP group.
This is the largest study in the literature comparing a single surgeon's experience transitioning from L-TEP to R-TAPP inguinal hernia repair. Results from the R-TAPP cases were similar to those achieved from laparoscopic cases. The robotic platform may have facilitated the execution of complex hernia cases during the proficiency phase.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,451,618
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#3,057
of 4,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,564
of 309,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#52
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
