IMPORTANCE Despite rapid adoption of the robotic platform for inguinal hernia repair in the US, to date, no level I trials have ever compared robotic inguinal hernia repair to laparoscopic repair. This multicenter randomized clinical trial is the first to compare the robotic platform to laparoscopic approach for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair.OBJECTIVE To determine whether the robotic approach to inguinal hernia repair results in improved postoperative outcomes compared with traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis multicenter, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical pilot study was conducted from April 2016 to April 2019, with a follow-up duration of 30 days in 6 academic and academic-affiliated sites. Enrolled in this study were 113 patients with a unilateral primary or recurrent inguinal hernia. After exclusions 102 remained for analysis.INTERVENTIONS Standard laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair or robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESMain outcomes included postoperative pain, health-related quality of life, mobility, wound morbidity, and cosmesis. Secondary outcomes included cost, surgeon ergonomics, and surgeon mental workload. A primary outcome was not selected because this study was designed as a pilot study. The hypothesis was formulated prior to data collection.RESULTS A total of 102 patients were included in the study (54 in the laparoscopic group, mean [SD] age, 57.2 [13.3] years and 48 [88.9%] male; 48 in the robotic group, mean [SD] age, 56.1 [14.1] years and 44 [91.6%] male). There were no differences at the preoperative, 1-week, or 30-day points between the groups in terms of wound events, readmissions, pain as measured by the Visual Analog Scale, or quality of life as measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. Compared with traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair was associated with longer median (interquartile range) operative times (75.5 [59.0-93.8] minutes vs 40.5 [29.2-63.8] minutes, respectively; P < .001), higher median (interquartile range

Objective: To study the efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine on postoperative opioid requirement and pain following abdominal wall reconstruction. Summary Background Data: Despite the widespread use of liposomal bupivacaine in transversus abdominis plane block, there is inadequate evidence demonstrating its efficacy in open abdominal wall reconstruction. We hypothesized that liposomal bupivacaine plane block would result in decreased opioid requirements compared with placebo in the first 72 hours after surgery. Methods: This was a single-center double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective study conducted between July 2018 and November 2019. Adult patients (at least 18 yrs of age) undergoing open, elective, ventral hernia repairs with mesh placed in the retromuscular position were enrolled. Patients were randomized to surgeon-performed transversus abdominis plane block with liposomal bupivacaine, simple bupivacaine, or normal saline (placebo). The main outcome was opioid requirements in the first 72 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes included total inpatient opioid use, pain scores determined using a 100 mm visual analog scale, length of hospital stay, and patientreported quality of life.Results: Of the 164 patients who were included in the analysis, 57 patients received liposomal bupivacaine, 55 patients received simple bupivacaine, and 52 received placebo. There were no differences in the total opioid used in the first 72 hours after surgery as measured by morphine milligram equivalents when liposomal bupivacaine was compared with simple bupivacaine and placebo (325 ± 225 vs 350 ± 284 vs 310 ± 272, respectively, P = 0.725). Similarly, there were no differences in total inpatient opioid use, pain scores, length of stay, and patient-reported quality of life. Conclusions: There are no apparent clinical benefits to using liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane block when compared with simple bupivacaine and placebo for open abdominal wall reconstruction.

IMPORTANCEAlthough multiple versions of polypropylene mesh devices are currently available on the market for hernia repair, few comparisons exist to guide surgeons as to which device may be preferable for certain indications. Mesh density is believed to impact patient outcomes, including rates of chronic pain and perception of mesh in the abdominal wall.OBJECTIVE To examine whether medium-weight polypropylene is associated with less pain at 1 year compared with heavy-weight mesh. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multicenter randomized clinical trial was performed from March 14, 2017, to April 17, 2019, with 1-year follow-up. Patients undergoing clean, open ventral hernia repairs with a width 20 cm or less were studied. Patients were blinded to the intervention. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive medium-weight or heavy-weight polypropylene mesh during open ventral hernia repair. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was pain measured with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Intensity Short Form 3a. Secondary outcomes included quality of life and pain measured at 30 days, quality of life measured at 1 year, 30-day postoperative morbidity, and 1-year hernia recurrence. RESULTS A total of 350 patients participated in the study, with 173 randomized to receive heavy-weight polypropylene mesh (84 [48.6%] female; mean [SD] age, 59.2 [11.4] years) and 177 randomized to receive medium-weight polypropylene mesh (91 [51.4%] female; mean [SD] age, 59.3 [11.4] years). No significant differences were found in demographic characteristics (mean [SD] body mass index of 32.0 [5.4] in both groups [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared] and American Society of Anesthesiologists classes of 2-4 in both groups), comorbidities (122 [70.5%] vs 93 [52.5%] with hypertension, 44 [25.4%] vs 43 [24.3%] with diabetes, 17 [9.8%] vs 12 [6.8%] with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), or operative characteristics (modified hernia grade of 2 in 130 [75.1] vs 140 [79.1] in the heavy-weight vs medium-weight mesh groups). Pain scores for patients in the heavy-weight vs medium-weight mesh groups at 30 days (46.3 vs 46.3, P = .89) and 1 year (30.7 vs 30.7, P = .59) were identical. No significant differences in quality of life (median [interquartile range] hernia-specific quality of life score at 1 year of 90.0 [67.9-96.7] vs 86.7 [65.0-93.3]; median [interquartile range] hernia-specific quality of life score at 30 days, 45.0 [24.6-73.8] vs 43.3 [28.3-65.0]) were found for the heavy-weight mesh vs medium-weight mesh groups. Composite 1-year recurrence rates for patients in the heavy-weight vs medium-weight polypropylene groups were similar (8% vs 7%, P = .79).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Medium-weight polypropylene did not demonstrate any patient-perceived or clinical benefit over heavy-weight polypropylene after open retromuscular ventral hernia repair. Long-term follow-up of these comparable groups will elucidate a...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract