Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Despite being one of the most common operations performed by general surgeons, there is a lack of consensus regarding the recommended approach for ventral hernia repair (VHR). Recent times have seen the rapid development of new techniques, such as robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the currently available evidence relating to RVHR, in comparison to open VHR (OVHR) and laparoscopic VHR (LVHR).
METHODS: A systematic search of the following databases was conducted: PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science. A meta-analysis was performed for the outcomes of length of stay (LOS), recurrence, operative time, intraoperative complications, wound complications, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, mortality and costs.
RESULTS: A total of 39 studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, RVHR reduced LOS, intra-operative complications, wound complications and readmission compared to OVHR. Compared to LVHR, RVHR was associated with increased operative time and costs, with comparable clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: There is currently a lack of robust evidence to support the robotic approach in VHR. It does not demonstrate major benefits in comparison to LVHR, which is more affordable and accessible. Strong quality, long-term data is required to help with establishing a gold standard approach in VHR.
METHODS: A systematic search of the following databases was conducted: PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science. A meta-analysis was performed for the outcomes of length of stay (LOS), recurrence, operative time, intraoperative complications, wound complications, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, mortality and costs.
RESULTS: A total of 39 studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, RVHR reduced LOS, intra-operative complications, wound complications and readmission compared to OVHR. Compared to LVHR, RVHR was associated with increased operative time and costs, with comparable clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: There is currently a lack of robust evidence to support the robotic approach in VHR. It does not demonstrate major benefits in comparison to LVHR, which is more affordable and accessible. Strong quality, long-term data is required to help with establishing a gold standard approach in VHR.
摘要：
背景：尽管是普通外科医生最常见的手术之一，对于腹侧疝修补术(VHR)的推荐方法缺乏共识.最近看到了新技术的快速发展，如机器人腹侧疝修补术（RVHR）。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估目前与RVHR相关的证据。与开放式VHR（OVHR）和腹腔镜VHR（LVHR）相比。
方法：对以下数据库进行了系统搜索：PubMed，Embase,Scopus和WebofScience对住院时间(LOS)的结果进行了荟萃分析，复发,手术时间,术中并发症,伤口并发症,重新接纳30天,30天再次手术,死亡率和成本。
结果：共有39项研究符合纳入标准。总的来说,RVHR降低了LOS,术中并发症,与OVHR相比，伤口并发症和再入院。与LVHR相比,RVHR与手术时间和成本的增加有关，具有可比的临床结果。
结论：目前缺乏有力的证据来支持VHR中的机器人方法。与LVHR相比，它没有显示出主要的好处，更实惠，更容易获得。质量强,需要长期数据来帮助建立VHR的黄金标准方法。
方法：对以下数据库进行了系统搜索：PubMed，Embase,Scopus和WebofScience对住院时间(LOS)的结果进行了荟萃分析，复发,手术时间,术中并发症,伤口并发症,重新接纳30天,30天再次手术,死亡率和成本。
结果：共有39项研究符合纳入标准。总的来说,RVHR降低了LOS,术中并发症,与OVHR相比，伤口并发症和再入院。与LVHR相比,RVHR与手术时间和成本的增加有关，具有可比的临床结果。
结论：目前缺乏有力的证据来支持VHR中的机器人方法。与LVHR相比，它没有显示出主要的好处，更实惠，更容易获得。质量强,需要长期数据来帮助建立VHR的黄金标准方法。
