• 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 INGUINAL HERNIA REPAIR IS SUPERIOR TO OPEN OR LAPAROSCOPIC INGUINAL HERNIA REPAIR: A NATIONAL DATA BASE REVIEW.

ROBOTIC INGUINAL HERNIA REPAIR IS SUPERIOR TO OPEN OR LAPAROSCOPIC INGUINAL HERNIA REPAIR: A NATIONAL DATA BASE REVIEW.

Dietric L Hennings, MD, Priscila R Armijo, MD, Dmitry Oleynikov, MD. University of Nebraska Medical Center

Introduction: Many publications have focused on single surgeon or single center data comparing the three different approaches to inguinal hernia repair. The aim of this study is to evaluate patient outcomes including complications, length of stay (LOS) and pain medication utilization of patients who underwent an open (OIHR), laparoscopic (LIHR) or robotic (RIHR) inguinal hernia repair using a national database.

Methods: The Vizient clinical database resource manager (CDB/RM) was queried using ICD-9 and ICD-10 procedure and diagnosis codes for patients who underwent each inguinal hernia repair approach from October 2013 to June 2017. Only patients who underwent elective procedures, and classified as minor or moderate risk severity were included. Severity was defined by a validated clinical algorithm that assesses 29 comorbidities, patient demographics and major diagnosis. Complications, 30-day readmission, mortality, LOS, and intra-hospital opiate utilization were analyzed using IBM SPSS v.23.0. Median tests with post-hoc pairwise comparisons, Fischer’s exact and Pearson’s chi-squared test with Bonferroni correction were applied where appropriate, with α=0.05.

Results: 3,547 patients (OIHR: N=2,413, LIHR: N=540, RIHR: N=594) met the criteria and were included in the study. Majority of patients were male (OIHR:84.1%, LIHR:80.4%, RIHR:95.3%), older than 51 years (OIHR:81.5%, LIHR:81.7%, RIHR:95.3%), and Caucasian (OIHR:75.7%, LIHR:77.0%, RIHR:81.5%). RIHR had the lowest rate of overall complications (0.67%) compared to both IHR (4.44%) and OIHR (3.85%), p<0.05. Whereas OIHR had the highest postoperative infection rate (8.33%), versus IHR (0.56%) and RIHR (0.0%), p < 0.05. OIHR had also longer length of stay (3.57±4.1 days) when compared to both groups (LIHR:2.2±2.13 days, RIHR:1.75±1.62 days), p<0.001. OIHR had a significantly higher 30-day readmission rate (3.61%) compared to the robotic approach (0.84%), p=0.001. Mortality rates were similar between groups (OIHR:0.21%, LIHR:0.19%, RIHR:0.17%), p=0.081. Opiate use was significantly higher in the OIHR group (96.0%), compared to both LIHR (93.1%), and RIHR (93.8%), p=0.004.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates improved outcomes of robotic inguinal hernia repair compared to an open or laparoscopic approach. Robotic hernia repair showed overall lower 30-day complication and readmission rates, and shortened LOS. While open approach had the highest rate of opiate use, no difference was seen in those rates between laparoscopic and robotic repairs. Research determining the role of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair continues to evolve as database capture provides more perspective. Further studies are needed to assess whether surgeon or patient selection contribute to those outcomes.


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

Abstract ID: 87010

Program Number: P777

Presentation Session: iPoster Session (Non CME)

Presentation Type: Poster

336

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