Comparison of Midterm Outcomes Between Open and Robotic Emergent Ventral Hernia Repair

Background. There are no studies on the role of robotics in emergency ventral hernia repair (EVHR). We aimed to compare outcomes of robotic EVHR (REVHR) and open (OEVHR). Methods. We performed a retrospective study of EVHRs performed between 2013 and 2019. Patients who underwent ventral hernia repair in an elective setting and patients who had concomitant non-abdominal wall procedures were excluded. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative variables were compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results. In all, 43 patients underwent OEVHR as compared to 35 patients who underwent REVHR. The patients in both groups were similar in terms of hernia etiology as well as Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II) and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores. Mean operative times for the robotic group were almost 2-fold compared with those of the open group (139 minutes vs 70 minutes, respectively; P < .001). Median length of stay (LOS) did not differ between the groups (3 days for both groups; P = .488). Major complications (P = .001), morbidity scores (P = .006), surgical site events (SSEs) (P = .045), and procedural interventions (P = .020) were found higher in the open group. No differences in freedom of recurrence were found (P = .662). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that open repair was associated with a 4-fold risk for the development of complications as compared to robotic repair (P = .025; odds ratio (OR) = 4, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.193-13.444). Conclusion. Compared to OEVHR, REVHR resulted in longer operative times and lower morbidity, including SSEs and related interventions. However, neither LOS nor recurrence differed between the groups.