Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic incisional hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis / Correction to: Robotic‑assisted versus laparoscopic incisional hernia repair: a systematic review and meta‑analysis

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety outcomes of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic techniques for incisional hernia repair. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane databases, and conference abstracts were systematically searched for studies that directly compared robot-assisted versus laparoscopy for incisional hernia repair and reported safety or efficacy outcomes in a follow-up of ≥ 1 month. The primary endpoints of interest were postoperative complications and the length of hospital stay. Results: The search strategy yielded 2104 results, of which four studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies included 1293 patients with incisional hernia repairs, 440 (34%) of whom underwent robot-assisted repair. Study follow-up ranged from 1 to 24 months. There was no significant difference between groups in the incidence of postoperative complications (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.35–1.21; p = 0.17). The recurrence rate of incisional hernias (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.05–2.29; p = 0.27) was also similar between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries. Hospital length of stay (MD − 1.05 days; 95% CI − 2.06, − 0.04; p = 0.04) was significantly reduced in the robotic-assisted repair. However, the robot-assisted repair had a significantly longer operative time (MD 69.6 min; 95% CI 59.0–80.1; p < 0.001). Conclusion: The robotic approach for incisional hernia repair was associated with a significant difference between the two groups in complications and recurrence rates, a longer operative time than laparoscopic repair, but with a shorter length of stay. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature.