• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Robotic-Assisted Abdominal Wall Hernia Repair Does not Decrease Peri-operative Pain When Compared to Laparoscopic Repair

Robotic-Assisted Abdominal Wall Hernia Repair Does not Decrease Peri-operative Pain When Compared to Laparoscopic Repair

Maureen D Moore, MD, Katherine D Gray, MD, Suraj Panjwani, MBBS, Aaron Burshtein, Joshua Burshtein, Thomas J Fahey III, Gregory Dakin, MD, Alfons Pomp, MD, Cheguevara Afaneh, MD, Rasa Zarnegar, MD. New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical Center

INTRODUCTION: When compared to open abdominal ventral hernia repair, laparoscopic repair results in decreased pain and complication rates. We aimed to determine the perioperative pain scores and outcomes when comparing robotic-assisted abdominal wall hernia repair with fascial closure to traditional laparoscopic-assisted approach with open fascial closure.

METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 173 consecutive patients who underwent primary laparoscopic-assisted ventral hernia repair (LVHR), primary robotic-assisted ventral hernia repair (RVHR), laparoscopic-assisted incisional hernia repair (LIHR) or robotic-assisted incisional hernia repair (RIHR) between 2014-2016. Both primary repair of the defect as well as placement of an underlay mesh was performed. Robotic-assisted hernia repairs involve robotically suturing the mesh in place, while the laparoscopic approach involves tacking the mesh in place. Patient characteristics, operative details, post-operative complications, post-operative pain scores and medication requirements were collected and analyzed. Primary end points were cumulative opioid use at 6, 12, 18, 24 and 48 hours post-operatively and pain scores recorded in six-hour intervals up to 18 hours post-operatively. Secondary end-points were post-operative complications and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS: Patient demographics and clinical characteristics in the laparoscopic (n = 89) versus robotic groups (n = 84) were comparable except for Charlson Index (p=0.04) (Table 1). The mean operative time was shorter in primary LVHR versus primary RVHR (68 ± 21 mins vs. 107 ± 29 mins; respectively p=<0.0001), however there was no statistical difference when comparing LIHR versus RIHR. There were no significant differences in EBL, conversion rates and post-operative complication rates among groups. LIHR had significantly smaller hernia defect sizes (p=0.04) but used larger mesh sizes when compared to RIHR (P=<0.001). The LVHR group had a shorter LOS (p=0.03). The LIHR group had significantly lower pain scores throughout the first 6 hours post-operatively (p=0.03). There was a significant difference in opioid use between LVHR vs. RVHR (p=0.001) and LIHR vs. RIHR (p=0.005) from 6-12 hours postoperatively. Cumulatively, patients in the LIHR group required less opioids than RIHR (p=0.02). There was no significant difference in pain scores at any time point among the groups after 6 hours postoperatively (p > 0.05) (Table 2).

CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted ventral hernia repair with mesh is a safe and feasible approach; however, laparoscopic ventral hernia repair may confer less early post-operative pain with resultant decreased opioid use especially after an incisional hernia repair.


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 80381

Program Number: P001

Presentation Session: Poster of Distinction (Non CME)

Presentation Type: PDIST

178

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals