Добавил:
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
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
65 Мб
Скачать
Robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal (r-TAPP) andIntraperitoneal Onlay Mesh
21
(r-IPOM) Hernia Repairs forVentral Hernias
RachelReed, SavannahSmith, EliMlaver, andS.ScottDavis 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 difculties 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. ScottDavis 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, specically 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 5cm 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 >10cm, 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 difculty 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 andPreparation
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 benet 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 andRobotic 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 inuenced 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 2–3cm 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 15mm 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 reconrmed as this can affect the depth of the trocars. Under direct visualization using the 5mm laparoscopic trocar, two robotic ports are placed. The middle 8mm 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 15cm from the hernia defect to facilitate visual­ization and dissection of the edge of the defect closest to the ports. In the lower quadrant, another 8mm robotic trocar is placed slightly more medial to the camera port and superior to the iliac crest. This port should be assessed for potential conict 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 8mm robotic trocar. If not, a third robotic 8mm 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 8cm apart from one another. Care is taken during port placement to mentally visualize the arcs of the surgical arms and to anticipate arm conicts 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 difcult. Facile bedside support familiar with robotic ergonomics and adjustment of robotic arms can also avoid signicant frustration and difculties 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 10cm from the defect when possible. A rule of thumb is to place a prosthetic that would cover the original defect by 5cm in all directions, thus guiding the size for the ap. For example, a 2cm defect warrants a 12cm mesh (2cm defect +5cm overlap on each side), and a 6cm defect would warrant a 16cm 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 difcult 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 efcacy. 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 sufcient 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 5cm 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, monolament sutures may be used if there is concern about the use of barbed sutures. Of note, in cases that require larger meshes (larger than 15cm x 20cm), we have noted more difculty in using the robotic platform due to limitations caused by robotic arm collisions during the extremes of mesh xation.

Conclusion

The signicant 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 procient 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 renement 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, Clain 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, etal. 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

CigdemBenlice, BilgiBaca, andOmarYusefKudsi

Background

The evolution of ventral hernia repair techniques over the past several decades reects a dynamic landscape in surgical approaches. When addressing complex ventral hernias requiring abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR), the substantiated evidence underscores the efcacy 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 benets 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 benets 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 oftheComplex 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 dened as exceeding 10cm 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 specic conditions affecting the abdominal wall, neces­sitating a tailored and often multidisciplinary approach to achieve optimal outcomes [11].
The revised classication system developed by the Modied Ventral Hernia Working Group (mVHWG) straties 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) classica­tion [13]. This classication, 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 (>20.0cm), while patient (P) comorbidities are noted as absent (0) or present (1) for instances of a BMI >35kg/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) identi­ed factors crucial to dening 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 denition. A hernia width exceeding 10cm was deemed a signicant 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 inuence of past surgeries on future hernia repairs. Only two patient-related factors deemed essential by the experts for den­ing a complex incisional hernia were a body mass index of at least 40kg/m2 and cirrhosis with ascites. These factors had previously been identied as independent risk factors for unfavorable postoperative outcomes [16].
Rationality andAdaption ofRobotic 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 etal., 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