Laparoscopic versus robotic inguinal hernia repair: a single-center case-matched study

Introduction Robotic inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) is becoming increasingly common and is the minimally invasive alternative to laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR). Thus far, there is little data directly comparing LIHR and RIHR. The purpose of this study will be to compare outcomes for LIHR and RIHR at a single center. Methods A prospective institutional hernia database was queried for patients who underwent transabdominal LIHR or RIHR from 2012 to 2020. The patients were then matched based on the surgeon performing the operation (single, expert hernia surgeon) and laterality of repair. Standard descriptive statistics were used. Results There were 282 patients who met criteria for the study, 141 LIHR and 141 RIHR; 32.6% of patients in each group had a bilateral repair (p = 1.00). LIHR patients were slightly younger (54.4 +/- 15.6 vs 58.6 +/- 13.8; p = 0.03) but similar in terms of BMI (27.1 +/- 5.1 vs 29.1 +/- 2.1; p = 0.70) and number of comorbidities (2.9 +/- 2.5 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2; p = 0.59). Operative time was found to be longer in the RIHR group, but when evaluating RIHR at the beginning of the study versus the end of the study, there was a 50-min decrease in operative time (p < 0.01). Recurrence rates were low for both groups (0.7% vs 1.4%; p = 0.38) with mean follow-up time 13.0 +/- 13.3 months. There was only one wound infection, which was in the robotic group. No patients required return to the operating room for complications relating to their surgery. There were no 30-day readmissions in the LIHR group and three 30-day readmissions in the RIHR group (p = 0.28). Conclusion LIHR and RIHR are both performed with low morbidity and have comparable overall outcomes. The total charges were increased in the RIHR group. Either LIHR or RIHR may be considered when performing inguinal hernia repair and should depend on surgeon and patient preference; continued evaluation of the outcomes is warranted.