The aim of this study was to compare length of stay (LOS) after robotic-assisted and open retromuscular ventral hernia repair (RVHR).
RVHR has traditionally been performed by open techniques. Robotic-assisted surgery enables surgeons to perform minimally invasive RVHR, but with unknown benefit. Using real-world evidence, this study compared LOS after open (o-RVHR) and robotic-assisted (r-RVHR) approach.
Multi-institutional data from patients undergoing elective RVHR in the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative between 2013 and 2016 were analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to compare median LOS between o-RVHR and r-RVHR groups. This work was supported by an unrestricted grant from Intuitive Surgical, and all clinical authors have declared direct or indirect relationships with Intuitive Surgical.
In all, 333 patients met inclusion criteria for a 2:1 match performed on 111 r-RVHR patients using propensity scores, with 222 o-RVHR patients having similar characteristics as the robotic-assisted group. Median LOS [interquartile range (IQR)] was significantly decreased for r-RVHR patients [2 days (IQR 2)] compared with o-RVHR patients [3 days (IQR 3), P < 0.001]. No differences in 30-day readmissions or surgical site infections were observed. Higher surgical site occurrences were noted with r-RVHR, consisting mostly of seromas not requiring intervention.
Using real-world evidence, a robotic-assisted approach to RVHR offers the clinical benefit of reduced postoperative LOS. Ongoing monitoring of this technique should be employed through continuous quality improvement to determine the long-term effect on hernia recurrence, complications, patient satisfaction, and overall cost.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 24 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,037,915
of 34,237,651 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgery
#493
of 11,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,776
of 492,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgery
#14
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,237,651 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,558 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
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 492,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
