Open versus robotic transversus abdominis release for ventral hernia repair: an updated systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.

Aim: Posterior component separation using transversus abdominis release (TAR) is well established as an option for repair of large hernia defects. TAR can be performed robotically (rTAR) or open (oTAR) with limited data to demonstrate benefit and guide decision making. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing rTAR and oTAR approaches for ventral hernia repair (VHR).

Material And Methods: We searched Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science for studies comparing rTAR and oTAR for VHR. Hybrid rTAR was not included in our analysis. Our primary outcomes were overall postoperative and intraoperative complications, surgical site occurrences (SSO), SSO requiring surgical intervention (SSOPI), surgical site infection (SSI) superficial or deep, and fascial closure. Additional outcomes were operative time (OT), readmission, length of hospital stay (LOS). We performed sensitivity analysis to explore reasons for heterogeneity and outliers, and a proportional meta-analysis of conversion during rTAR. We performed a meta-regression exploring the relationship of BMI, hernia defect and mesh width rTAR/oTAR with the analyzed outcome within each study.

Results: 503 studies were screened and seven studies were included in this analysis. Our sample totaled 780 patients, of which 298 (38.2%) underwent rTAR. Defect width ranged between 8.7 to 13.5 cm (cm) for rTAR and 10 to 13.5 cm for oTAR. Mean mesh area ranged from 66.9 to 980 cm and from 51.3 to 1344 cm for rTAR and oTAR respectively. We found lower overall complications (9% versus 24.6%; RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.73; P < 0.01) and intraoperative complication (5.9% versus 9.1%; RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.88; P = 0.02) rates for the rTAR group. There was no difference in fascial closure between the groups (99% versus 94.6%; RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11; P = 0.11). rTAR presented lower SSI rates (2.5% versus 7.8%; RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.8; P = 0.01). No differences were found in SSO (16.3% versus 13.7%; RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.48; P = 0.6) or SSOPI (5.4% versus 8.9%%; RR 0.5; 95% CI 0.22 to 1.15; P = 0.1) rates. No statistically significant differences were found in superficial SSI (0.76% versus 3%; RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.07 to 1.75; P = 0.21) and deep SSI (0% versus 4.2%; RR 0.23; 95% CI 0.02 to 3.12; P = 0.27). Open surgery presented a lower OT (MD -67.7 min; P < 0.001), but robotic surgery showed a reduced LOS (-3.9 days; 95% CI -4.8 to -3.1; P < 0.001). No differences were found in readmission and 1 year recurrence rates. The proportional meta-analysis showed a conversion to open rate of 6.4 per 100 patients (95% CI 3.3 to 12 patients) during rTAR. Meta-regression presented no statistically significant influences of rTAR/oTAR mesh width and defect width relations and BMI, despite the analysis was limited by the low number of studies.

Conclusion: Robotic TAR may be associated with lower intraoperative and postoperative complications, lower SSI, shorter LOS, and longer operative times when compared to oTAR. Given the limitations of the included studies, randomized trials are needed to better evaluate the impact of the robotic-assisted surgery for complex abdominal wall reconstruction.

Prospero Registration: CRD42024540991.