Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 4, 2026
Use of a Rat Model to Study Ventral Abdominal Hernia Repair
Published on: October 2, 2017
Introduction of Robotic Abdominal Wall Reconstruction Into a UK-Abdominal Wall Reconstruction Practice: Early
T L Ward1, Z Al-Amiedy1, P Robinson1
1Wirral University Teaching Hospitals, Birkenhead, United Kingdom.
Introduction:
There is strong evidence that robotic abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) reduces length of stay and postoperative complications. Despite this, it remains significantly limited in publicly funded healthcare systems due to reported costs and limited access to robotic surgical platforms.
Methods:
Cases were reviewed from a prospectively maintained database of AWR patients in a single unit undergoing Robotic Rives-Stoppa repair or open Rives-Stoppa repair. A prospectively maintained database was accessed and analysed. Data analysed included demographics, comorbidities, hernia characteristics, operative times and surgical outcomes. Cost analysis was performed based on length of stay, critical care bed days, and cost of consumables.
Results:
Data were collected from 28 robotic Rives-Stoppa repairs and 18 open Rives-Stoppa repairs. There was no difference in operative time between the two groups (199 min vs. 186 min, p = 0.147). The anaesthetic time was shorter in the robotic group (36 min vs. 56 min, p = <0.001), and the length of stay was longer in the open group (2 days vs. 7 days, p = <0.001). There were five critical care unit bed days in the open group, vs. 0 in the robotic group (p = <0.001). Complications were not significantly different (10.7% vs. 22.0%, p = 0.407), and there were no cases of postoperative mortality. Cost analysis showed an average saving of £1,807.58 per case.
Conclusion:
Our series demonstrates that robotic Rives-Stoppa AWR can be delivered in a safe manner with financial savings and equivalent operative time compared with open surgery.
