ReviewCurrent urology reports2025
Incisional Hernia after Robotic Urological Surgery.
Review in Current urology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo summarize the current evidence on the incidence, risk factors, diagnosis, prevention, and management of incisional hernias following robotic urologic surgery. RECENT
findingsEmerging evidence has highlighted both surgical and patient-related factors that influence the risk of incisional hernia. Surgical variables associated with higher incidence include midline extraction sites, midline trocar placement, prior abdominal surgery, non-bladed trocar use, and advanced tumor stage. Patient-specific contributors include visceral obesity and rectus diastasis. The financial impact is substantial, with U.S. healthcare expenditures for incisional hernia management estimated at $1.7 billion annually, underscoring the need to optimize surgical technique and patient selection to reduce this burden. Incisional hernia (IH) remains a significant postoperative complication, even with the advent of minimally invasive and robotic surgical techniques. Studies report a variable incidence of IH 0.2-6.3% following robotic prostatectomy, with rates as high as 27% in robotic nephrectomy depending on imaging modality and hernia definition. Diagnosis is commonly made with CT imaging, which remains the gold standard for preoperative planning. Although many IHs are asymptomatic, they may progress to incarceration, necessitating emergency repair with significant morbidity and mortality. Risk factors for IH are multifactorial and include patient-related variables such as obesity, smoking, COPD, diabetes, and rectus diastasis, as well as surgical factors including trocar size and type, extraction site location, and fascial closure technique. Notably, midline and bladed trocar placements are associated with higher hernia risk, while Pfannenstiel extraction and use of non-bladed trocars may be protective. Management strategies remain inconsistent, and preventive measures such as prophylactic mesh, proven effective in general surgery, have yet to be evaluated in urologic robotic procedures. This review summarizes the current literature on IH following robotic urologic surgery, with emphasis on incidence, risk factors, diagnostic modalities, preventive techniques, and potential areas for future research. Given the growing use of robotics in urology and the rising economic burden of IH, better understanding of prevention and early intervention is essential to improving outcomes and reducing healthcare costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41196443What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.