Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40828228›Full record

SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025

"Comparative safety and efficacy of robotic TAPP and IPOM techniques in ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Short-term Outcomes".

Ahmed Abdelsamad, Ibrahim Khalil, Khaled Ashraf Mohamed, Aya Sayed Ahmed Said Serour, Mohammed Khaled Mohammed, Noureldin Mostafa, Youssef Osama Badie, Zeyad M Wesh, Alaeldin Mohamedsami Mohamedosman Ali, Florian Gebauer

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic ReviewComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Ahmed AbdelsamadDepartment of Surgery II, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany. ahmed6361410@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5451-4504
Ibrahim KhalilFaculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, 5372066, Egypt.
Khaled Ashraf MohamedGeneral surgery Department, Cairo University hospitals, Cairo, Egypt.
Aya Sayed Ahmed Said SerourFaculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohammed Khaled MohammedFaculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Noureldin MostafaFaculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Youssef Osama BadieFaculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, 5372066, Egypt.
Zeyad M WeshFaculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, 5372066, Egypt.
Alaeldin Mohamedsami Mohamedosman AliFaculty of Medicine, Ibn Sina University, Khartoum, Sudan , Khartoum, Sudan.
Florian GebauerDepartment of Surgery II, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic-assisted ventral hernia repair has gained popularity for its enhanced precision and visualization. Two main approaches-r-IPOM and r-TAPP-differ in technique and risk profiles. r-IPOM/+ is technically simpler and preferred for larger defects, but may increase seroma and bowel-related complications. Conversely, r-TAPP employs extraperitoneal mesh positioning, potentially reducing postoperative complications. This meta-analysis aimed to compare perioperative outcomes between r-IPOM and r-TAPP, focusing on seroma, surgical site infection (SSI), and hernia defect closure. Secondary outcomes included recurrence, reoperation, operative time, and hospital stay.

methodsA systematic meta-analysis, including 11 studies and 1001 patients, was performed. Pooled event rates and mean differences were calculated using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses based on mesh type and meta-regression assessing the impact of defect closure on complication rates were conducted. Evidence certainty was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

resultsBoth approaches achieved high defect closure rates (r-IPOM+: 98%, r-TAPP: 99%; p = 0.9). Seroma and hematoma rates were low without significant differences; however, r-IPOM showed a slightly higher trend. r-TAPP demonstrated a significantly lower Surgical site infection (SSI) rate (1%) compared to (r-IPOM 4%, p = 0.02), although these complications themselves did not differ significantly between groups, indicating a possible but unconfirmed association. Recurrence, reoperation, operative time, and hospital stay were comparable. Meta-regression indicated a non-significant trend toward fewer complications with higher closure rates (p = 0.09). The GRADE assessment rated the certainty of evidence as high across all outcomes.

conclusionBoth r-TAPP and r-IPOM are effective and safe for robotic ventral hernia repair. A significant inverse correlation between closure rates and complication rates underscores the importance of complete, tension-free closure. While perioperative outcomes are largely comparable, r-TAPP may reduce infection risk likely due to lower seroma and hematoma rates. Approach selection should be guided by patient factors, anatomical considerations, and surgical expertise.

Indexed as

Hernia, VentralHerniorrhaphyRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRecurrenceReoperationSeromaSurgical MeshSurgical Wound InfectionTreatment OutcomeMeta-analysisPerioperative complicationsr-IPOM/rIPOM+Robotic ventral hernia repairr-TAPP

Identifiers

PMID40828228
PMCPMC12364986

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.