Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Inguinal Hernioplasty: Time to Move Forward


Authors

  • Claudia Viviana Jaimes Gonzalez Clinica de Marly https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5863-2022
  • Camilo Andres Giedelman Clinica de Marly https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8259-0793
  • Andres Hanssen Cirujano bariatrico y robotica
  • Luis Eduardo Cavelier Castro Clinica de Marly
  • Gonzalo Andrés Domínguez Alvarado Universidad autonoma de Bucaramanga
  • Adriana Patricia Mora Lozada Clinica de Marly
  • Jaime Andrés Barrios Campos Clinica de Marly
  • María José Pereira Velasquez Clinica de Marly

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22517/25395203.25705

Keywords:

Robotics, Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures, Hernia, Clinical Course, Latin America

Abstract

Introduction: Inguinal hernia is one of the most common surgical conditions, affecting millions of people worldwide. Due to its high incidence and the serious complications associated with it, management has evolved through advanced surgical techniques such as laparoscopy and robotic surgery, optimizing outcomes and reducing postoperative risks. This article aims to present the standardization of the robotic-assisted laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy technique.

Clinical case: Two clinical cases of robotic-assisted inguinal hernioplasty are described. Case 1,  A 41-year-old male with a history of umbilical herniorrhaphy was diagnosed with a right medial inguinal hernia, with a 26 mm defect and a hernia sac measuring 19 × 9 mm. The total surgical time was 95 minutes. The patient was discharged 10 hours postoperatively and reported mild postoperative pain (2/10 on the visual analog scale). Case 2, A 57-year-old male with a left medial and femoral inguinal hernia underwent a 75-minute procedure. He was discharged 9 hours later and reported mild postoperative pain (2/10 on the visual analog scale).

Conclusion: Robotic surgery enabled precise and efficient hernia repair, minimizing operative time and reducing the need for instrument changes. The outcomes were favorable, with rapid recovery and no postoperative complications, demonstrating the effectiveness and safety of the robotic technique in the management of inguinal hernias.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Shakil A, Aparicio K, Barta E, Munez K. Inguinal Hernias: Diagnosis and Management. Am Fam Physician. 2020 Oct 15;102(8):487–92.

Guidelines – EHS [Internet]. [cited 2024 Oct 8]. Available from: https://europeanherniasociety.eu/category/guidelines/

Alonso Gamboa T. Descripción clínico-epidemiológica de los pacientes mayores de 60 años operados de hernia inguinal [Internet]. 2018. Available from: www.medigraphic.com/cirujanogeneralwww.medigraphic.org.

Xu TQ, Higgins RM. The Minimally Invasive Inguinal Hernia: Current Trends and Considerations. Surg Clin North Am. 2023 Oct;103(5):875–87.

Schroeder AD, Tubre DJ, Fitzgibbons RJ. Watchful Waiting for Inguinal Hernia. Adv Surg. 2019 Sep;53:293–303.

INCA Trialists Collaboration. Operation compared with watchful waiting in elderly male inguinal hernia patients: a review and data analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Feb;212(2):251-259.e1-4.

HerniaSurge Group. International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia. 2018 Feb;22(1):1–165.

Patel VH, Wright AS. Controversies in Inguinal Hernia. Surg Clin North Am. 2021 Dec;101(6):1067–79.

Tam V, Rogers DE, Al-Abbas A, Borrebach J, Dunn SA, Zureikat AH, et al. Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Large Health System’s Experience With the First 300 Cases and Review of the Literature. J Surg Res. 2019 Mar;235:98–104.

Kakiashvili E, Bez M, Abu Shakra I, Ganam S, Bickel A, Merei F, et al. Robotic inguinal hernia repair: Is it a new era in the management of inguinal hernia? Asian J Surg. 2021 Jan 1;44(1):93–8.

Pirolla EH, Patriota GP, Pirolla FJC, Ribeiro FPG, Rodrigues MG, Ismail LR, et al. Inguinal repair via robotic assisted technique: literature review. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2018 Dec 6;31(4):e1408.

Anyomih TTK, Mehta A, Sackey D, Woo CA, Gyabaah EY, Jabulo M, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery in the emergency setting: a systematic review. J Robot Surg. 2024 Jul 5;18(1):281.

Solaini L, Cavaliere D, Avanzolini A, Rocco G, Ercolani G. Robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg. 2022 Aug;16(4):775–81.

Waite KE, Herman MA, Doyle PJ. Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair. J Robot Surg. 2016 Sep 1;10(3):239–44.

Prabhu AS, Carbonell A, Hope W, Warren J, Higgins R, Jacob B, et al. Robotic Inguinal vs Transabdominal Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: The RIVAL Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg. 2020 May 1;155(5):380–7.

Qabbani A, Aboumarzouk OM, ElBakry T, Al-Ansari A, Elakkad MS. Robotic inguinal hernia repair: systematic review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg. 2021 Nov 1;91(11):2277–87.

Iraniha A, Peloquin J. Long-term quality of life and outcomes following robotic assisted TAPP inguinal hernia repair. J Robot Surg. 2018 Jun 1;12(2):261–9.

Bittner IV JG, Cesnik LW, Kirwan T, Wolf L, Guo D. Patient perceptions of acute pain and activity disruption following inguinal hernia repair: a propensity-matched comparison of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open approaches. J Robot Surg. 2018 Dec 1;12(4):625–32.

Ayala Gutiérrez MC, Flórez Flórez MG, Dukon González MF, Lizcano VM, Serrano-Mesa K, Domínguez-Alvarado GA, et al. Perspective of robotic surgery in Colombia, are we doing well? International Journal of Surgery: Global Health. 2022 May;5(3):e72–e72. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/ijsgh/fulltext/2022/05010/perspective_of_robotic_surgery_in_colombia,_are_we.1.aspx

Downloads

Published

2025-06-05

How to Cite

Jaimes Gonzalez, C. V., Giedelman , C. A., Hanssen , A. ., Cavelier Castro, L. E. ., Domínguez Alvarado, G. A., Mora Lozada , A. P. ., Barrios Campos, J. A. ., & Pereira Velasquez , M. J. . (2025). Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Inguinal Hernioplasty: Time to Move Forward. Revista Médica De Risaralda, 31(1), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.22517/25395203.25705

Issue

Vol. 31 No. 1 (2025): Enero-junio 2025

Section

Case report

License

Cesión de derechos y tratamiento de datos

La aceptación de un artículo para su publicación en la Revista Médica de Risaralda implica la cesión de los derechos de impresión y reproducción, por cualquier forma y medio, del autor a favor de  Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud de la Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira. 1995-2018. Todos los derechos reservados ®

por parte de los autores para obtener el permiso de reproducción de sus contribuciones. La reproducción total o parcial de los trabajos aparecidos en la Revista Médica de Risaralda, debe hacerse citando la procedencia, en caso contrario, se viola los derechos reservados.

Asimismo, se entiende que los conceptos y opiniones expresados en cada trabajo son de la exclusiva responsabilidad del autor, sin responsabilizarse ni solidarizarse, necesariamente, ni la redacción, ni la editorial.

Es responsabilidad de los autores poder proporcionar a los lectores interesados copias de los datos en bruto, manuales de procedimiento, puntuaciones y, en general, material experimental relevante.

Asimismo, la Dirección de la revista garantiza el adecuado tratamiento de los datos de carácter personal