COMPARISON OFSURGICALAPPROACHES FORABDOMINALHERNIAREPAIR
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51473/rcmos.v1i1.2024.599Keywords:
Laparoscopy. Open Surgery. Postoperative Complications. Recurrence. Robotic Surgical Procedures.Abstract
This systematic review aims to compare open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical techniques
for abdominal hernia repair, evaluating their efficacy, benefits, and drawbacks. A comprehensive search of PubMed and ScienceDirect was conducted using terms related to "abdominal hernia repair" and "surgical techniques". The review included studies published from 2020 to 2024, focusing on randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews. The analysis revealed that laparoscopic and robotic repairs generally offer reduced recovery times, less postoperative pain, and lower complication rates compared to open surgery. However, robotic repairs, while offering precision and ergonomic advantages, come
with higher costs and longer setup times. Open repairs, though associated with higher complication rates and longer recovery periods, are still preferred in certain complex cases due to their straightforward execution. This review highlights that laparoscopic and robotic techniques present notable advantages over traditional open surgery, particularly in terms of postoperative outcomes and patient recovery. The findings support the use of minimally
invasive approaches where feasible but also underscore the importance of considering individual patient circumstances and the complexity of the hernia when selecting the most appropriate surgical technique.
Downloads
References
BECKERS PERLETTI, Louise; SPOELDERS, Femke; BERREVOET, Frederik. Association
between surgical hernia repair techniques and the incidence of seroma: a systematic review
and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hernia, p. 1-13, 2022.
DE’ANGELIS, Nicola et al. Robotic surgery for inguinal and ventral hernia repair: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgical Endoscopy, v. 38, n. 1, p. 24-46, 2024.
DIXIT, R. et al. Patient-reported outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic primary ventral and
incisional hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia, v. 27, n. 2, p.
-257, 2023.
HAGER, Matthew; EDGERTON, Colston; HOPE, William W. Primary uncomplicated
ventral hernia repair: guidelines and practice patterns for routine hernia repairs. Surgical
Clinics, v. 103, n. 5, p. 901-915, 2023.
HERNANDEZ, Alexandra; PETERSEN, Rebecca. Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair.
Surgical Clinics, v. 103, n. 5, p. 947-960, 2023.
JESSEN, Majken Lyhne; ÖBERG, Stina; ROSENBERG, Jacob. Surgical techniques for
repair of abdominal rectus diastasis: a scoping review. Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand
Surgery, v. 55, n. 4, p. 195-201, 2021.
LI, Junsheng; WANG, Yong; WU, Lisheng. The comparison of eTEP and IPOM in ventral
and incisional hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgical Laparoscopy
Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques, v. 32, n. 2, p. 252-258, 2022.
MARTINS, Márcia Regina et al. Comparison between the open and the laparoscopic
approach in the primary ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, v. 409, n. 1, p. 52, 2024.
MOHAN, Ramkumar et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a systematic
review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and propensity score matched
studies. Hernia, v. 25, p. 1565-1572, 2021.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Mateus Manzan, Aianne Lannara Freire e Silva, Eduarda Pereira Rodrigues Figueiredo, Lara Vitória de Paula Oliveira, Luiza Bitarães Amorim (Autor/in)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This means you are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The use of this material is conditioned upon proper attribution to the original author(s), providing a link to the license, and indicating if changes were made. The license does not require permission from the author or the publisher as long as these conditions are met.
The Creative Commons license logo is displayed permanently in the footer of the journal.
The copyright of the manuscript can be retained by the authors without restrictions and can be requested at any time, even after publication in the journal.
How to Cite
