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

IMPORTANCE Despite rapid adoption of the robotic platform for ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh in the United States, there is no level I evidence comparing it with the traditional laparoscopic approach. This randomized clinical trial sought to demonstrate a clinical benefit to the robotic approach.OBJECTIVE To determine whether robotic approach to ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh would result in less postoperative pain. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA registry-based, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical trial at the Cleveland Clinic Center for Abdominal Core Health, Cleveland, Ohio, completed between September 2017 and January 2020, with a minimum follow-up duration of 30 days. Two surgeons at 1 academic tertiary care hospital. Patients with primary or incisional midline ventral hernias of an anticipated width of 7 cm or less presenting in the elective setting and able to tolerate a minimally invasive repair.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to a standardized laparoscopic or robotic ventral hernia repair with fascial closure and intraperitoneal mesh. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe trial was powered to detect a 30% difference in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11) on the first postoperative day. Secondary end points included the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Intensity short form (3a), hernia-specific quality of life, operative time, wound morbidity, recurrence, length of stay, and cost. RESULTSSeventy-five patients completed their minimally invasive hernia repair: 36 laparoscopic and 39 robotic. Baseline demographics and hernia characteristics were comparable. Robotic operations had a longer median operative time (146 vs 94 minutes; P < .001). There were 2 visceral injuries in each cohort but no full-thickness enterotomies or unplanned reoperations. There were no significant differences in NRS-11 scores preoperatively or on postoperative days 0, 1, 7, or 30. Specifically, median NRS-11 scores on the first postoperative day were the same (5 vs 5; P = .61). Likewise, postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 3a and hernia-specific quality-of-life scores, as well as length of stay and complication rates, were similar. The robotic platform adds cost (total cost ratio, 1.13 vs 0.97; P = .03), driven by the cost of additional operating room time (1.25 vs 0.85; P < .001).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Laparoscopic and robotic ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh have comparable outcomes. The increased operative time and proportional cost of the robotic approach are not offset by a measurable clinical benefit.

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.

No abstract