Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5193_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Disclaimer for Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Manual
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Commercialization
- •References
- •References
- •3: Asensus Surgical: Senhance Surgical System
- •Asensus Surgical: Senhance Surgical System
- •Senhance System Console
- •Straight Stick Instruments
- •Articulating Instruments
- •Energy
- •Intelligent Surgical Unit
- •Advanced Intelligent Surgical Unit Features
- •Senhance Connect
- •Surgeons Console Design
- •Arm Cart Design
- •The Hugo RAS™ System
- •Robotic Arms
- •The Surgeon’s Console
- •System Tower
- •Arm Cart
- •Hugo Instruments
- •Future Developments
- •References
- •5: Versius Surgical Robot
- •Introduction
- •System Design
- •Surgeon Console
- •Disclaimers
- •The Head-Up Display (HUD)
- •Some Important Icons
- •Alarm Icons
- •Arm Modes
- •Arm Clash
- •System Connections
- •Approved Procedures
- •Some Important Safety Features
- •Conclusion
- •6: Virtual Incision: MIRA Surgical System
- •Introduction
- •The MIRA Surgical System
- •Indication
- •Additional Technical Information
- •Clinical Data
- •Telesurgery
- •Purpose
- •Adopting
- •Operationalizing
- •Standardizing
- •Lessons
- •Conclusion
- •Bibliography
- •Introduction
- •Curricula Components
- •Web-Based Training
- •Virtual Simulation
- •Bedside Skills
- •Console Training
- •Training Programs
- •Intuitive Surgical Da Vinci Curriculum
- •Robotic Training Network (RTN)
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •9: Digital Surgery
- •Introduction
- •Advanced Visualization
- •3D Visualization
- •Fluorescence-Guided Surgery
- •Augmented Reality
- •Current Implementation
- •Enhanced Instrumentation
- •Data Capture
- •Video Data
- •Data Analytics
- •Artificial Intelligence
- •Surgical Decision-Making
- •Skills Assessment
- •Patient Care
- •Automated Surgery
- •Connectivity
- •Telementoring
- •Education
- •Clinical Practice
- •Telesurgery
- •Robotic Surgical Platforms
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Foundational Knowledge
- •Practical Skills
- •Continuing Education
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Robotic Surgery Curriculum
- •Surgical Decision-Making
- •Surgical Technique
- •Operative Technique
- •Facebook™ Groups
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •12: Robotic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair
- •Postoperative Care
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Features
- •Diagnosis
- •Endoscopic Functional Luminal Imaging Probe (EndoFLIP)
- •Treatment
- •Pharmacotherapy
- •Endoscopic Treatment
- •Botulinum Toxin Injection
- •Pneumatic Dilation
- •Per-oral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM)
- •Heller Myotomy
- •Operative Steps
- •Liver Retraction
- •Hiatal Dissection
- •Myotomy
- •Partial Fundoplication
- •Intraoperative Complications
- •Esophageal Perforation
- •Gastric Perforation
- •Vagal Nerve Injury
- •Postoperative Care
- •References
- •14: Robotic Esophagectomy
- •Introduction
- •Robotic-Assisted Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy
- •Abdominal Phase
- •Thoracic Phase
- •Robotic-Assisted McKeown Esophagectomy
- •Thoracic Phase
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Indications
- •Local Resection: “Wedge Gastrectomy”
- •Lymphadenectomy
- •Proximal Gastrectomy
- •Distal Gastrectomy
- •Total Gastrectomy
- •Reconstruction
- •Billroth I
- •Roux-en-Y
- •Double-Tract Reconstruction
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •16: Robotic Sleeve Gastrectomy
- •Introduction
- •Operative Technique
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •17: Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass
- •Introduction
- •Indications
- •Contraindications
- •Patient Preparation
- •Technique (Key Operative Steps)
- •Complications
- •Early Complications
- •Late Complications
- •References
- •18: DS/SADI
- •Introduction
- •Patient Preparation
- •Surgical Technique
- •Single Anastomosis DuodenoIleal Bypass
- •Sleeve Gastrectomy
- •Bowel Measurement
- •Duodenal Dissection
- •Duodenoileostomy
- •Bowel Measurement
- •Enteroenterostomy
- •Postoperative Care
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Part I: Revisional Foregut Surgery
- •Introduction
- •Operative Principles: Robotic Revisional Foregut Surgery
- •Presurgical Care: Optimization/Prehabilitation
- •Operating Room Setup
- •Patient Positioning
- •Access/Port Placement/Liver Retraction
- •Fundoplication Takedown
- •Crural Repair
- •Mesh Reinforcement
- •Antireflux Procedure
- •Outcomes
- •Part II: Revisional Bariatric Surgery
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Assessment
- •Setup
- •Access/Port Placement/Liver Retraction
- •Surgical Technique
- •Outcomes
- •References
- •20: Robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) Inguinal Hernia Repair
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Evaluation
- •Robotic TAPP
- •Instrumentation
- •Dissection
- •Mesh
- •Closure
- •Special Cases
- •Acute Presentation
- •Common Complications
- •Chronic Pain
- •Recurrence
- •Testicular Ischemia
- •Mesh Infection
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Considerations
- •Intraoperative Considerations
- •R-TAPP
- •IPOM
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •22: Complex Robotic Abdominal Wall Reconstruction
- •Background
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Botox Injection
- •Patient Selection
- •Operative Procedure
- •Patient Positioning
- •Technique
- •Hybrid Robotic Ventral Hernia Repair
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •23: Robotic Cholecystectomy
- •Introduction
- •Indications
- •Robotic Dissection
- •Single-Port Robotic Cholecystectomy
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Robotic Liver Resection
- •Patient Selection
- •Positioning
- •Port Placement
- •Standard Robotic Instruments
- •Right Hepatectomy (see Video 1)
- •Falciform Dissection
- •Hilar Dissection
- •Intraoperative Ultrasound
- •Parenchymal Transection
- •Left Hepatectomy
- •Hilar Dissection
- •Pringle Maneuver
- •Left Lateral Sectionectomy
- •Right Posterior Sectionectomy
- •Segment 7 Resection
- •Segment 8 Resection
- •Robotic Biliary Reconstruction
- •Choledochal Cyst
- •Bile Duct Injury
- •Roux-en-Y Hepaticojejunostomy
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •25: Robotic-Assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple)
- •Robotic Whipple
- •Patient Selection
- •Operative Steps
- •Supra-pancreatic/Hilar Dissection
- •Uncinate Dissection
- •Reconstruction Phase
- •Final Steps
- •Vascular Resections
- •Postoperative Care
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •26: Right Hemicolectomy
- •Introduction
- •Indications
- •Preparation
- •Patient Positioning
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Background
- •Indications
- •Operation Steps
- •Left Hemicolectomy
- •Total Colectomy
- •Learning Curve
- •Future Directions
- •Suprapubic Approach
- •Single-Site Robotic Surgery
- •da Vinci SP® Surgical System
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •28: Low Anterior Resection
- •Background
- •Learning Curve
- •Training Program
- •Genitourinary Function
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Operative Procedure
- •Room Setup
- •Patient Positioning
- •Technique
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •29: Robotic Lateral Transabdominal Adrenalectomy
- •Introduction
- •Pertinent Anatomy
- •Patient Positioning
- •Right Adrenalectomy
- •Port Placement
- •Technique
- •Left Adrenalectomy
- •Port Placement
- •Technique
- •Postoperative Care
- •Limitations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Operative Room Setup
- •Patient Position
- •Surgical Procedure
- •Step 1: Working Space
- •Step 3: Console Time
- •Discussion
- •References
- •31: Robotic Pulmonary Lobectomy
- •Current Evidence
- •Surgical Technique
- •Right-Sided Resections
- •Right Upper Lobectomy
- •Right Lower Lobectomy
- •Right Middle Lobectomy
- •Left-Sided Resections
- •Left Lower Lobectomy
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •32: Robotic-Assisted Cardiac Surgery
- •Introduction
- •Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass
- •Operative Technique
- •Outcomes
- •Robotic-Assisted TECAB
- •Hybrid Coronary Revascularization (HCR)
- •Robotic-Assisted Mitral Valve Surgery
- •Patient Selection
- •Outcomes
- •Robotic Aortic Valve Replacement
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •33: Mediastinal Procedures
- •Introduction
- •Anterior Mediastinal Mass Example Case Scenario
- •Anterior Mediastinal Mass Excision Operative Steps
- •Middle Mediastinal Mass Example Case Scenario
- •Middle Mediastinal Cyst Excision Operative Steps
- •Posterior Mediastinal Mass Case Scenario
- •Patient Positioning
- •Posterior Mediastinal Mass Excision Operative Steps
- •Summary
- •References
- •34: Liver Transplantation
- •Introduction
- •Robotic Donor Hepatectomy
- •Patient Selection
- •Positioning
- •Port Placement
- •Instruments
- •Adjunct Robotic Instruments
- •Right Donor Hepatectomy
- •Falciform Dissection
- •Hilar Dissection
- •Demarcation
- •Parenchymal Transection
- •“Rubber Band” Retraction Technique
- •Parenchymal Transection
- •Closure
- •Left Donor Hepatectomy
- •Hilar Dissection
- •Demarcation
- •Parenchymal Transection
- •“Rubber Band” Retraction Technique
- •Parenchymal Transection

Robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal
(r-TAPP) andIntraperitoneal Onlay Mesh
21
(r-IPOM) Hernia Repairs forVentral
Hernias
RachelReed, SavannahSmith, EliMlaver,
andS.ScottDavis Jr.
Introduction
Ventral hernias are being seen with increasing frequency throughout the United
States, with an average of 610,000 repairs performed annually [1]. This number has
doubled since 2006. Over the past decade, there has been a steady movement toward
robotic surgery with up to 32% of the repairs being performed robotically [1, 2].
Robotic techniques, many of which are adapted from concepts used in both open
and laparoscopic ventral hernia repairs, continue to evolve. This includes a recent
trend to make efforts to place the mesh in extraperitoneal locations. When translated
to the robot, ergonomic difculties associated with laparoscopic instruments are
lessened and visualization is improved. In this chapter, we will discuss both the
robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (r-TAPP) and the intraperitoneal
onlay mesh (r-IPOM) hernia repairs for ventral hernias, both of which are important
techniques for general surgeons to have in their armamentarium.
Preoperative Considerations
Preoperative considerations for robotic ventral hernia repairs do not differ greatly
from those used in both laparoscopic and open repairs. For all cases, thorough history and physical examination should be completed, including pertinent past histories such as smoking status, diabetes, use of immunosuppressants, and obesity.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86927-3_21.
R. Reed · S. Smith · E. Mlaver · S. ScottDavis Jr. (*)
Department of Surgery, General and GI Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine,
Atlanta, GA, USA
e-mail: sdavisj@emory.edu
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025
S. Samreen et al. (eds.), The SAGES Manual of Robotic Surgery,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86927-3_21
271

272
R. Reed et al.
Furthermore, it is important to delineate past surgical history, specically previous
abdominal wall surgeries. Physical examination is vital to assess for defect size,
abdominal compliance, presence of diastasis recti, prior surgical scars (to correlate
to reported surgical history), presence of central obesity or visceral adiposity, and
integrity of the overlying skin envelope. For those with a more complex abdominal
wall surgical history or concerning hernia examination, cross-sectional imaging
should be obtained to assist in further surgical planning.
A detailed preoperative discussion of the patient’s goals is critical to planning a
successful plan of care. The goals of one patient may be different from those of
another and these goals must be matched to the patient condition with consideration
of physical presentations which may include signs of frailty, other concurrent medical conditions, the patient’s activities of daily living, and local home environment.
Preoperative discussion regarding different techniques is also important.
A strong knowledge of the layers of the abdominal wall is crucial prior to any
hernia operation. Operative choices are not “one size ts all,” and a tailored approach
is necessary. The main goals of any hernia surgery include reduction of the hernia,
closure of the primary defect if feasible, and developing a space where a 5cm or
more overlap of the mesh can be achieved [3]. Larger defects may be increasingly
likely to require bridged repair or need for myofascial releases to achieve closure of
the fascial defects, and in defects >10cm, an open approach robotic would be recommended [4]. In return for a more complicated dissection (facilitated by robotic
advantages for most surgeons), r-TAPP allows for the mesh to be placed in an extraperitoneal location, theoretically decreasing the risk of adhesions or mesh-related
complications. It also allows for closure of the fascia that has been dissected off the
hernia sac, and decreased requirement for xation which can be associated with
increased postoperative pain. If the surgeon is unable to create an adequate peritoneal ap or the patient is found to have multiple small ventral hernias (“Swiss
cheese hernia”), then r-IPOM is preferred. Other considerations while creating the
ap include the increased robotic difculty of a dissection in incisional defects
when compared to primary defects as well as in larger defects as the peritoneum
becomes less robust as the dissection moves further off the midline.
Intraoperative Considerations
Positioning andPreparation
Patients should be prepared robotic using agreed-upon enhanced recovery protocols
employed increasingly and now considered standard of care. They should be administered the appropriate preoperative antibiotics, SCDs should be in place, and
abdominal hair should be clipped. Patient preparation and positioning are similar
for both techniques and the same port orientation can be used.
The patient is positioned supine. A Foley catheter is considered depending on
surgeon discretion but is not required in most cases. Once the surgeon has determined port laterality (further discussed below), the surgeon can choose to position

21 Robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal (r-TAPP) and Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh…
273
the arms in several ways. Both arms can be tucked, the ipsilateral arm is tucked with
a loose sling to allow the arm to drop posteriorly to ensure full range of motion of
the robotic arms with the contralateral arm extended, or both arms can be extended
on arm boards. We have found the benet of increasing the domain for the port locations by positioning the patient over the break in the bed and exing 10–15 degrees
to increase the space between the subcostal margin and the iliac crest. The patient
should be strapped securely to the table in case table repositioning is needed during
the operation. The abdomen should be prepped from the xiphoid to the pubis and as
far lateral as possible, especially on the side designated for port placement.
Port Placement andRobotic Docking
Similar to the ports placed in conventional laparoscopic ventral hernia repair, the
ports are placed laterally so the hernia defect can be triangulated by the three robotic
arms needed for the case. Abdominal access is often gained via OptiView or Veress
needle entry. This site can be inuenced by previous surgeries, hernia location, and
preoperative imaging ndings. Access is most often obtained at Palmer’s point, on
the left side at the midclavicular line approximately 2–3cm from the costal margin.
If there is any concern regarding the safety of obtaining access at Palmer’s point, an
alternative entry point or open cutdown should be chosen.
Once pneumoperitoneum has been established, robotic port placement can begin.
We typically use pneumoperitoneum pressures of 15mm Hg, but after docking can
consider decreasing the pressure if the abdominal domain will allow as this allows
for easier defect closure and atter prosthetic placement. If pneumoperitoneum is
decreased during the case, remote centers should be reconrmed as this can affect
the depth of the trocars. Under direct visualization using the 5mm laparoscopic
trocar, two robotic ports are placed. The middle 8mm port will be for the camera
and should be as lateral as possible to allow more room for the working ports.
Ideally, this port is approximately 15cm from the hernia defect to facilitate visualization and dissection of the edge of the defect closest to the ports. In the lower
quadrant, another 8mm robotic trocar is placed slightly more medial to the camera
port and superior to the iliac crest. This port should be assessed for potential conict
with the patient’s thigh prior to starting the operation. If the trocar at Palmer’s point
can be used for the surgery, the port should be upsized to an 8mm robotic trocar. If
not, a third robotic 8mm trocar should be placed cranial and just medial to the camera port. The three ports along the lateral abdomen should be in an arc and approximately 8cm apart from one another. Care is taken during port placement to mentally
visualize the arcs of the surgical arms and to anticipate arm conicts which will be
most apparent at the extreme ends of the proposed peritoneal ap closure. If the
ports are placed too medial, the ap creation and subsequent closure will be more
difcult. Facile bedside support familiar with robotic ergonomics and adjustment of
robotic arms can also avoid signicant frustration and difculties during the case.
After the robotic trocars have been placed, the robot can be docked. The robot
should be brought toward the patient laterally from the side opposite the ports.

274
Fig. 21.1 Robotic ventral hernia repair port placement and operating room setup
R. Reed et al.
Initial instruments include a grasping instrument (e.g., fenestrated bipolar or
Prograsp) and monopolar scissors (Fig.21.1).
R-TAPP
Similar to laparoscopic ventral hernia repair, the abdominal wall must be cleared of
adhesions. If the hernia cannot be reduced preoperatively, it should be carefully
reduced at this time or it will interfere with later attempts to reduce the sac. This can
be facilitated by gentle external pressure from the bedside assistant if needed. The
surgeon must be careful to avoid injury to any bowel involved with the hernia or
surrounding adhesions and to preserve the peritoneum, which is essential to the
repair. Once this has been completed, the surgeon will create the preperitoneal ap.
The preperitoneal ap should be started using monopolar scissors several centimeters lateral from the hernia defect on the side closest to the ports. In general, a
larger overlap is better, and we try to start 10cm from the defect when possible. A
rule of thumb is to place a prosthetic that would cover the original defect by 5cm in
all directions, thus guiding the size for the ap. For example, a 2cm defect warrants
a 12cm mesh (2cm defect +5cm overlap on each side), and a 6cm defect would
warrant a 16cm prosthetic. This highlights how increasingly larger defects require
larger dissections for an optimal repair and why larger defects may be better treated
with other techniques.
The ap is then further developed via sharp and blunt dissection (sparing electrocautery use) such that there is adequate space circumferentially around the hernia
for mesh placement and adequate overlap. In most cases, we endeavor to reduce the
peritoneal sac as part of the peritoneal ap, and this is more difcult in incisional

21 Robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal (r-TAPP) and Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh…
275
cases. Defects in this portion of the ap are more frequent in incisional cases and
can usually be repaired later in the case. If an adequate ap cannot be developed
given multiple ventral hernias or poor-quality peritoneum resulting in a ap with
multiple defects, the surgeon should elect to transition to r-IPOM.
After an adequate preperitoneal ap has been created, the hernia defect should be
closed primarily with long-term absorbable or permanent suture; barbed suture is
preferred to facilitate this closure. This should be done using a running stitch that
incorporates tissue from the hernia sac, if not reduced, to help close this space and
reduce the risk of seroma formation. Incorporating subcutaneous tissue in this closure is not effective and may lead to puckering of the skin.
Following primary closure of the hernia defect, an appropriately sized uncoated
mesh is introduced into the abdominal cavity and placed within the preperitoneal
ap. Depending on the hernia and patient characteristics, we typically decide
between self-xating prosthetic which is lighter weight and standard at sheet light/
midweight polypropylene mesh. The latter requires sentinel xation of the mesh
while self-xating meshes may not require further xation. The mesh should be
centered over the closed hernia defect. Once the mesh is appropriately placed, the
peritoneal ap is closed with a running absorbable suture and any ap defects are
subsequently closed primarily.
IPOM
IPOM is the most common current surgical approach for minimally invasive ventral
hernia repair and the procedure for which there is the most long-term data about
efcacy. Robotic hernia repair with intraperitoneal onlay mesh is indicated in
patients with “Swiss cheese” defects, lateral hernia defects, and in patients without
a peritoneal layer sufcient to create a preperitoneal ap [5].
The initial steps are similar to those of r-TAPP: clearing off the anterior abdominal wall by reducing the hernia and removing fatty tissue and adhesions and closing
the primary defect with barbed absorbable suture if possible. The abdominal wall
should be measured to select a composite mesh with an anti-adhesion barrier that
will allow for adequate overlap circumferentially. Again, mesh size is chosen as
described above and ideally based on original defect size plus 5cm overlap in all
directions. Defects are closed whenever possible which can be facilitated by
decreasing pneumoperitoneum or placement of trans-facial sutures with a suture
passer to help distribute the tension. After defect closure, the middle of the mesh
should be marked, and two absorbable barbed sutures should be placed at what will
be the cranial and caudal aspects of the mesh. The prepared mesh is rolled and introduced into the abdomen via a lateral port site. After unrolling the mesh, it is imperative to identify the uncoated and coated sides. The uncoated side is placed against
the peritoneum, while the coated side faces the intraperitoneal contents. The technique for securing the mesh is surgeon dependent. Most commonly, a chandelier
stitch is placed through the center of the incision to help position the mesh appropriately. The suture is then used to secure the edge of the mesh to the abdominal wall

276
R. Reed et al.
in a running fashion. A dolphin suturing technique is used most often. This involves
small bites with minimal travel on the mesh and larger bites and travel on the tissue,
minimizing the exposure of the barbed sutures to the abdominal viscera. Alternatively,
monolament sutures may be used if there is concern about the use of barbed
sutures. Of note, in cases that require larger meshes (larger than 15cm x 20cm), we
have noted more difculty in using the robotic platform due to limitations caused by
robotic arm collisions during the extremes of mesh xation.
Conclusion
The signicant increase in the number of ventral hernias requiring repair each year
in the United States highlights the importance of the development and continuous
evolution of surgical techniques for repair, including robot TAPP and IPOM.The
outcomes including early readmission, urinary retention, hematoma, and seroma in
these robotic-assisted repairs are similar to those seen in laparoscopic techniques
[6]. Long-term outcomes including quality of life and recurrence favor robotic and
laparoscopic repair, respectively [7]. While the learning curve is steep, requiring at
least 46 cases to become procient and optimize operative time, the shift toward
robotic repair highlights the substantial advantages, including improved visibility
and ergonomics [8]. As the rate of ventral hernias continues to increase in the United
States, there will inevitably be continued renement of these robotic techniques and
development of further technologies to reduce recurrence and postoperative
complications.
References
1. Schlosser KA, Renshaw SM, Tamer RM, Strassels SA, Poulose BK.Ventral hernia repair:
an increasing burden affecting abdominal core health. Hernia. 2023;27(2):415–21. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10029- 022- 02707- 6. Epub 2022 Dec 26. PMID: 36571666.
2. Sheetz KH, Clain J, Dimick JB. Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common
surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1918911. https://doi.org/10.1001/
jamanetworkopen.2019.18911.
3. LeBlanc K.Proper mesh overlap is a key determinant in hernia recurrence following laparo-
scopic ventral and incisional hernia repair. Hernia. 2016;20(1):85–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10029- 015- 1399- 9. Epub 2015 Jul 5. PMID: 26143072.
4. Earle D, Roth JS, Saber A, etal. SAGES guidelines for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Surg
Endosc. 2016;30:3163–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464- 016- 5072- x.
5. Sharma A, Berger D.The current role of laparoscopic IPOM repair in abdominal wall recon-
struction. Hernia. 2018;22:739–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029- 018- 1820- 2.
6. Kennedy M, Barrera K, Akcelik A, Constable Y, Smith M, Chung P, Sugiyama G.Robotic
TAPP ventral hernia repair: early lessons learned at an Inner City Safety Net Hospital.
JSLS. 2018;22(1):e2017.00070. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2017.00070. PMID: 29472756;
PMCID: PMC5802768.
7. Petro C, Thomas J, Tu C, Krpata D, Beffa L, Rosen M, Prabhu A.Robotic vs laparoscopic
ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh: 1-year exploratory outcomes of the PROVE-IT

21 Robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal (r-TAPP) and Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh…
randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2022;234(6):1160–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/
XCS.0000000000000171.
8. Kudsi OY, Gokcal F, Bou-Ayash N, Crawford AS, Chung SK, Chang K, Litwin D.Learning
curve in robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (rTAPP) ventral hernia repair: a cumulative sum
(CUSUM) analysis. Hernia. 2021;25(3):755–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029- 020- 02228- 0.
Epub 2020 Jun 3. PMID: 32495055; PMCID: PMC7268975.
277

Complex Robotic Abdominal Wall Reconstruction
CigdemBenlice, BilgiBaca, andOmarYusefKudsi
Background
The evolution of ventral hernia repair techniques over the past several decades
reects a dynamic landscape in surgical approaches. When addressing complex
ventral hernias requiring abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR), the substantiated
evidence underscores the efcacy of achieving a durable repair through meticulous
placement of mesh in the retromuscular position, coupled with the implementation
of transversus abdominis release (TAR) techniques [1, 2]. Despite the historical
preference for an open surgical approach in AWR, especially for addressing large
and complex ventral hernias, the landscape is evolving with the growing popularity
of robotic platforms, challenging traditional paradigms. Over the past decade, there
has been a swift adoption of robotic surgical techniques, with a notable surge in
their utilization within the realm of hernia repair, even in the absence of abundant
high-level evidence [3].
The progressive integration of minimally invasive approaches by general surgeons, driven by advancements in surgical technology, has become a hallmark of
contemporary surgical practice. LeBlanc and Booth rst introduced laparoscopic
ventral hernia repair (LVHR) in 1993 [4]. This minimally invasive approach, characterized by smaller incisions and gentler tissue handling, is associated with
decreased postoperative pain, shorter recovery times, reduced hospital length of
stay, and fewer wound complications when compared to open ventral hernia repair
[5, 6]. Although laparoscopy has become standard in routine ventral hernia repairs,
its application in the context of more intricate AWR procedures has been hampered
22
C. Benlice · B. Baca
Department of General Surgery, Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University School of
Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
O. Y. Kudsi (*)
Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School,
Boston, MA, USA
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025
S. Samreen et al. (eds.), The SAGES Manual of Robotic Surgery,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86927-3_22
279

280
C. Benlice et al.
by ergonomic challenges, particularly in accessing the retromuscular plane and
executing intracorporeal suturing [7, 8]. As a consequence, open repairs have traditionally been perceived as the only viable approach for addressing large and complex defects. While proponents of robotic surgery emphasize the inherent benets
of a minimally invasive approach and underscore the perceived ergonomic advantages of the robotic console, critics express reservations regarding the associated
increase in costs, extended operating room times, and a lack of clear-cut advantages
over existing techniques. Despite the absence of high-quality evidence, the escalating interest in integrating robotic surgery into ventral hernia repairs prompts a pivotal inquiry into the tangible clinical benets that may arise from this innovative
approach [9].
As minimally invasive techniques gain widespread acceptance, an escalating
number of studies have delved into exploring the outcomes of hernia repairs employing various approaches. In this setting, we provide an in-depth analysis of the complex robotic abdominal wall reconstruction technique and a summary of the present
status of the existing evidence.
Definition oftheComplex Abdominal Wall
The term “complex abdominal wall” encompasses various scenarios, generally
referring to a patient’s abdomen presenting with a ventral or incisional hernia or
defect along with one or more of the following characteristics [10, 11]:
(a) History of previous mesh/related wound infection: A history of, or an ongoing,
mesh or wound infection.
(b) Loss of domain: Instances where there is a reduction in the functional capacity
or volume of the abdominal cavity, known as loss of domain.
(c) Recurrent hernia: One or more recurrences of the hernia.
(d) Large-sized defect: A large-sized defect, often dened as exceeding 10cm in
diameter.
(e) Enterocutaneous stula: The presence of an enterocutaneous stula.
(f) Extensive damage to the abdominal wall tissues, which may result from trauma,
infection, or complications from prior surgeries.
Patients with complex abdominal walls often seek surgical repair for various
reasons. This complexity can arise due to various factors, including the presence of
large or recurrent hernias, extensive tissue damage, or complications from previous
surgeries. A surgeon intending to approach the repair of a complex abdominal wall
should be trained and prepared to employ a range of techniques as needed to achieve
a favorable outcome. The management of a complex abdominal wall requires a
thorough assessment of the patient’s medical history, physical examination, and
often advanced imaging studies. Surgical planning for complex abdominal wall
repairs may involve specialized techniques, including component separation, mesh
reinforcement, or even advanced technologies like robotic-assisted procedures.

22 Complex Robotic Abdominal Wall Reconstruction
281
Overall, the term “complex abdominal wall” underscores the challenges and intricacies involved in addressing specic conditions affecting the abdominal wall, necessitating a tailored and often multidisciplinary approach to achieve optimal
outcomes [11].
The revised classication system developed by the Modied Ventral Hernia
Working Group (mVHWG) straties hernia patients into different grades according
to wound cleanliness and related risk factors: Grade 1 pertains to wounds that are
clean with minimal risk of complications, grade 2 involves clean wounds with concurrent comorbidities or previous infections, and grade 3 encompasses clean contaminated to dirty wounds [12]. Acknowledging the limitations of the mVHWG in
addressing hernia size considerations, the 2018 Dutch guideline on incisional hernias proposed a shift toward adopting the Hernia Patient Wound (HPW) classication [13]. This classication, similar to TNM staging, is designed to predict
postoperative outcomes based solely on preoperative characteristics. Hernia width
(H) is categorized as grade 1 (0–9.9 cm), grade 2 (10–19.9 cm), or grade 3
(>20.0cm), while patient (P) comorbidities are noted as absent (0) or present (1) for
instances of a BMI >35kg/m2, current nicotine use, diabetes, or immunosuppression. Wound (W) or surgical eld cleanliness is assessed as clean (0) or contaminated (1). When addressing complex hernias, robotic TAR at HPW stage II–IV
emerges as the primary repair method, often favored by experienced robotic hernia
surgeons [14].
A recent Delphi study conducted by the European Hernia Society (EHS) identied factors crucial to dening a complex incisional hernia [15]. Eighteen factors
pertaining to the hernia and abdominal wall, the potential for concurrent infection in
the surgical site, and patient comorbidities were incorporated into the denition. A
hernia width exceeding 10cm was deemed a signicant threshold for complexity.
While a rst-time recurrent incisional hernia did not achieve consensus, consensus
was reached for cases involving two or more previous repairs with subsequent
recurrence. Various factors associated with prior abdominal surgeries, tissue manipulation, tissue removal, and previous use of component separation techniques also
attained consensus, highlighting the inuence of past surgeries on future hernia
repairs. Only two patient-related factors deemed essential by the experts for dening a complex incisional hernia were a body mass index of at least 40kg/m2 and
cirrhosis with ascites. These factors had previously been identied as independent
risk factors for unfavorable postoperative outcomes [16].
Rationality andAdaption ofRobotic Surgery
The rationality and adaptability of robotic surgery in ventral hernia repair are well
supported by ndings in the literature. Research studies, such as those by Belyansky
etal., have shed light on the rational use of robotic platforms in complex abdominal
wall reconstructions, especially for patients with large hernias requiring sophisticated techniques like TAR [17]. These studies demonstrate that robotic-assisted
approaches can provide comparable operative times and clinical outcomes to
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
