• 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 Hernia Repair – A Comparative Analysis With Its Laparoscopic Counterpart. A Single Surgeon’s Experience.

Robotic Hernia Repair – A Comparative Analysis With Its Laparoscopic Counterpart. A Single Surgeon’s Experience.

Kevin Bain, DO, Erika King, Vadim Meytes, DO, Sharique Nazir, MD. NYU Langone Hospital – Brooklyn

Background: The foundation of innovation in surgery is driven by the inherent desire to yield an increasingly efficient surgical approached with decreased morbidity and mortality. The advancements of laparoscopy have made a tremendous impact in hernia surgery, and it has largely replaced open surgical repair. In this regard, a novel technical approach is being explored through the robotic platform. This study compares a single physician’s experience with inguinal and ventral hernias, being repaired laparoscopically and robotically, with respect to duration of surgery, intraoperative costs, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative complications.

Methods: A single center, single surgeon retrospective review was conducted sampling data from January 2017 to August 2017 examining ventral and inguinal hernia repairs.

Results: Data was extrapolated from 13 inguinal hernia repairs, 6 were robotic (RIH) and 7 were laparoscopic (LIH). Average OR time for RIH was 127 minutes compared to LIH which was 85 minutes. Average intraoperative cost for RIH was $1,110 compared to LIH which was $890. Of note, one LIH was converted to open, whereas none of the RIH required conversion. Average LOS was 9.16 hours for RIH compared to 11.6 hours for LIH.  Postoperative pain at one week follow up was the same between both groups. Two postoperative surgical site occurrences (SSO) occurred in the LIH group (2 groin seromas), whereas no SSOs occurred in the RIH group. Eleven ventral hernia repairs were examined, 7 were robotic (RVH) and 4 were laparoscopic (LVH). Average OR time for RVH was 132 minutes compared to 65 minutes for LVH. Average intraoperative cost for RVH was $1,492 compared to LVH which was $1,264. No procedure from either group required conversion to open. Average LOS was 9.86 hours for RVH, and 13.5 hours for LVH. Again, postoperative pain was the same at one week follow up for both groups. There were no postoperative complications noted in either cohort.

Conclusion: Operative time and procedural costs for RVH and RIH repairs were shown to be longer and more expensive when compared to their laparoscopic counterparts. However, with increased operative experience using the robotic platform, surgical time did show a decreasing trend. Length of stay was similar between robotic and laparoscopic cohorts. Postoperative pain and complications were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic groups. In conclusion, we found that the robotic platform offers an acceptable approach to inguinal and ventral hernia repairs.


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

Abstract ID: 86234

Program Number: P793

Presentation Session: iPoster Session (Non CME)

Presentation Type: Poster

75

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