Different approaches to an inguinal hernia repair during a simultaneous robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Leah Y. Nakamura, Rafael N. Nunez, Erik P Castle, Paul E. Andrews, Mitchell R Humphreys

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To determine if different approaches to an inguinal hernia repair (robotic, laparoscopic, or open) results in different outcomes during a simultaneous robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively generated database of all RARPs performed at our institution. Patients who had a simultaneous inguinal hernia repair were identified. We compared them to an age-matched and body mass index-matched cohort who underwent RARP alone. We also compared outcomes between robotic versus laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. Results: A total of 1224 RARPs were performed between March 2004 and September 2009. Eighteen patients had simultaneous inguinal hernia repairs during their RARP performed by a general surgeon (5 laparoscopic, 8 open, and 5 robotic). When compared with the cohort who underwent RARP only, there were no statistically significant differences in blood loss, length of stay, or complications. The control group had a significantly shorter OR time (179.5 vs. 215.5 minutes, p = 0.007). When comparing the different approaches of an inguinal hernia repair, the only statistically significant differences noted were body mass index and operative time. Operative time was longer in open versus robotic inguinal hernia repair (74 vs. 31.6 minutes, p = 0.006). There were only two recurrences, both after the simultaneous open inguinal hernia repair. Conclusions: Simultaneous inguinal hernia repair is a safe and feasible operation to perform during RARP. Although it does extend overall operative time, approaching the repair robotically is quicker than an open approach. A randomized study is needed to truly determine if one approach has better outcomes than the rest.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)621-624
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Endourology
Volume25
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2011

Fingerprint

Inguinal Hernia
Herniorrhaphy
Prostatectomy
Robotics
Operative Time
Body Mass Index
Length of Stay
Databases
Recurrence
Control Groups

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Different approaches to an inguinal hernia repair during a simultaneous robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. / Nakamura, Leah Y.; Nunez, Rafael N.; Castle, Erik P; Andrews, Paul E.; Humphreys, Mitchell R.

In: Journal of Endourology, Vol. 25, No. 4, 01.04.2011, p. 621-624.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7d55ea57243c4651974b813618239c85,
title = "Different approaches to an inguinal hernia repair during a simultaneous robot-assisted radical prostatectomy",
abstract = "Objectives: To determine if different approaches to an inguinal hernia repair (robotic, laparoscopic, or open) results in different outcomes during a simultaneous robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively generated database of all RARPs performed at our institution. Patients who had a simultaneous inguinal hernia repair were identified. We compared them to an age-matched and body mass index-matched cohort who underwent RARP alone. We also compared outcomes between robotic versus laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. Results: A total of 1224 RARPs were performed between March 2004 and September 2009. Eighteen patients had simultaneous inguinal hernia repairs during their RARP performed by a general surgeon (5 laparoscopic, 8 open, and 5 robotic). When compared with the cohort who underwent RARP only, there were no statistically significant differences in blood loss, length of stay, or complications. The control group had a significantly shorter OR time (179.5 vs. 215.5 minutes, p = 0.007). When comparing the different approaches of an inguinal hernia repair, the only statistically significant differences noted were body mass index and operative time. Operative time was longer in open versus robotic inguinal hernia repair (74 vs. 31.6 minutes, p = 0.006). There were only two recurrences, both after the simultaneous open inguinal hernia repair. Conclusions: Simultaneous inguinal hernia repair is a safe and feasible operation to perform during RARP. Although it does extend overall operative time, approaching the repair robotically is quicker than an open approach. A randomized study is needed to truly determine if one approach has better outcomes than the rest.",
author = "Nakamura, {Leah Y.} and Nunez, {Rafael N.} and Castle, {Erik P} and Andrews, {Paul E.} and Humphreys, {Mitchell R}",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/end.2010.0417",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "621--624",
journal = "Journal of Endourology",
issn = "0892-7790",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Different approaches to an inguinal hernia repair during a simultaneous robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

AU - Nakamura, Leah Y.

AU - Nunez, Rafael N.

AU - Castle, Erik P

AU - Andrews, Paul E.

AU - Humphreys, Mitchell R

PY - 2011/4/1

Y1 - 2011/4/1

N2 - Objectives: To determine if different approaches to an inguinal hernia repair (robotic, laparoscopic, or open) results in different outcomes during a simultaneous robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively generated database of all RARPs performed at our institution. Patients who had a simultaneous inguinal hernia repair were identified. We compared them to an age-matched and body mass index-matched cohort who underwent RARP alone. We also compared outcomes between robotic versus laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. Results: A total of 1224 RARPs were performed between March 2004 and September 2009. Eighteen patients had simultaneous inguinal hernia repairs during their RARP performed by a general surgeon (5 laparoscopic, 8 open, and 5 robotic). When compared with the cohort who underwent RARP only, there were no statistically significant differences in blood loss, length of stay, or complications. The control group had a significantly shorter OR time (179.5 vs. 215.5 minutes, p = 0.007). When comparing the different approaches of an inguinal hernia repair, the only statistically significant differences noted were body mass index and operative time. Operative time was longer in open versus robotic inguinal hernia repair (74 vs. 31.6 minutes, p = 0.006). There were only two recurrences, both after the simultaneous open inguinal hernia repair. Conclusions: Simultaneous inguinal hernia repair is a safe and feasible operation to perform during RARP. Although it does extend overall operative time, approaching the repair robotically is quicker than an open approach. A randomized study is needed to truly determine if one approach has better outcomes than the rest.

AB - Objectives: To determine if different approaches to an inguinal hernia repair (robotic, laparoscopic, or open) results in different outcomes during a simultaneous robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively generated database of all RARPs performed at our institution. Patients who had a simultaneous inguinal hernia repair were identified. We compared them to an age-matched and body mass index-matched cohort who underwent RARP alone. We also compared outcomes between robotic versus laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. Results: A total of 1224 RARPs were performed between March 2004 and September 2009. Eighteen patients had simultaneous inguinal hernia repairs during their RARP performed by a general surgeon (5 laparoscopic, 8 open, and 5 robotic). When compared with the cohort who underwent RARP only, there were no statistically significant differences in blood loss, length of stay, or complications. The control group had a significantly shorter OR time (179.5 vs. 215.5 minutes, p = 0.007). When comparing the different approaches of an inguinal hernia repair, the only statistically significant differences noted were body mass index and operative time. Operative time was longer in open versus robotic inguinal hernia repair (74 vs. 31.6 minutes, p = 0.006). There were only two recurrences, both after the simultaneous open inguinal hernia repair. Conclusions: Simultaneous inguinal hernia repair is a safe and feasible operation to perform during RARP. Although it does extend overall operative time, approaching the repair robotically is quicker than an open approach. A randomized study is needed to truly determine if one approach has better outcomes than the rest.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79953816643&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79953816643&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/end.2010.0417

DO - 10.1089/end.2010.0417

M3 - Article

C2 - 21355775

AN - SCOPUS:79953816643

VL - 25

SP - 621

EP - 624

JO - Journal of Endourology

JF - Journal of Endourology

SN - 0892-7790

IS - 4

ER -