Robotic Versus Open Primary Ventral Hernia Repair

Status Active, not recruiting

Clinical Trial Summary

Umbilical and epigastric hernia repair, whether considering primary or incisional hernias, are associated with a high risk of local complications, with global rate of surgical complications at one month up to 25%. To date three techniques are used. Open ventral hernia repair (OVHR) is associated with a high risk of surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, and hematoma, but is the main technique due to advantages such as cost-effectiveness, short operative time and totally extra-peritoneal repair. Laparoscopic hernia repair (LHR) reduces these complications but implies to place a mesh in intra-peritoneal position which is known to lead to adhesions, requires advanced laparoscopic skills, does not allow the closure of the defect due to limited range of motion, and can lead to excessive pain and pain-killers consumption due to the use of "tackers" to hold the mesh in place. Robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR) uses the same laparoscopic access as LHR but thanks to the extended range of motion given by the robotic system allows defect closure, pre-peritoneal placement of the mesh and requires less technical skills. LHR is of very low adoption in Geneva University Hospital for the aforementioned inconvenient. Moreover, the final result of the procedure is not the same than with OVHR or RVHR, since the defect is not primarily closed and the mesh is in intra-peritoneal position. OVHR and RVHR , however, lead to the same final result and only defer by the access type (direct vs. laparoscopic). RVHR is gaining rapid popularity and adoption in the United States but remains a costly solution. It is unclear whether the supposed benefits for the patients of RVHR overwhelm the extra costs and time, especially by reducing the complication rate and consecutive in-hospital and out-hospital costs. Moreover, increasing experience of the robotic system in Geneva University Hospital has led to a significant costs and time reduction in other robotic procedures and could eventually make RVHR cost effective if its clinical benefits were to be proven. This study aims at demonstrating that robotic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal (rTAPP) primary ventral hernia repair leads to lower surgical site complication rate than the same procedure performed through standard open approach (OVHR), while being an acceptable solution from an economic, operative time and functional standpoint.

Clinical Trial Description

n/a

Study Design

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

Clinical Trial Details

NCT number	NCT04171921
Study type	Interventional
Source	University of Geneva, Switzerland
Contact
Status	Active, not recruiting
Phase	N/A
Start date	November 1, 2019
Completion date	September 1, 2023

View Details

See also
Status	Clinical Trial	Phase
Recruiting	`NCT06016426` - Mass Closure vs Layer by Layer Closure	N/A
Recruiting	`NCT05572021` - A Comparison of the Outcomes in Fortiva and Strattice Mesh	N/A
Completed	`NCT02263625` - Regional Differences In Indication for Ventral Hernia Repair
Completed	`NCT02263599` - Conservative Treatment For Ventral Hernia
Completed	`NCT02292264` - Risk Factors and Complications of Ventral Hernia Repair
Completed	`NCT01961687` - A Prospective, Multi-Center Study of Phasix™ Mesh for Ventral or Incisional Hernia Repair.	N/A
Completed	`NCT01325246` - Reoperation Rate Versus Clinical Recurrence After Ventral Hernia Repair	N/A
Completed	`NCT03283982` - Laparoscopic vs. Robotic Ventral Hernia Repair With IPOM	N/A
Not yet recruiting	`NCT05526209` - Longitudinal Relaxing Incision as a Technique for Recurrence Prevention in Ventral Hernia
Completed	`NCT04438369` - Evaluation of Ultrasound-guided Erector Spinae Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Laprascopic Ventral Hernia Repair.	N/A
Recruiting	`NCT04173884` - Video-based Collaborative Learning to Improve Ventral Hernia Repair	N/A
Recruiting	`NCT02703662` - Performance of Biologic Mesh Materials in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction	Phase 2/Phase 3
Completed	`NCT03938688` - Randomized Control Trial Comparing Transfascial Suture for Mesh Fixation to No Mesh Fixation	N/A
Active, not recruiting	`NCT01719718` - The Influence of Closing the Gap on Postoperative Seroma and Recurrences in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair	N/A
Completed	`NCT03342040` - Transverse Abdominis Plane Block in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair	N/A
Completed	`NCT04150796` - Comparing eTEP and Laparoscopic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh (IPOM) for Ventral Hernias	N/A
Recruiting	`NCT03222102` - Ventral Hernia Prevention After Liver Transplantation	N/A
Completed	`NCT05610267` - Gentrix® Surgical Matrix for Soft Tissue Reinforcement in Ventral Hernia Repair
Terminated	`NCT01794338` - The Use of Biologic Mesh vs Bioabsorbable Mesh During Ventral Hernia Repair in At-risk Patients	N/A
Completed	`NCT01886963` - A Clinical Trial Using Spy Elite System in Planning Tissue Advancement Flaps After Ventral Hernia Repair	N/A

Clinical trials are conducted in a series of steps, called phases - each phase is designed to answer a separate research question.

Phase 1: Researchers test a new drug or treatment in a small group of people for the first time to evaluate its safety, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects.
Phase 2: The drug or treatment is given to a larger group of people to see if it is effective and to further evaluate its safety.
Phase 3: The drug or treatment is given to large groups of people to confirm its effectiveness, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the drug or treatment to be used safely.
Phase 4: Studies are done after the drug or treatment has been marketed to gather information on the drug's effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use.

Robotic Versus Open Primary Ventral Hernia Repair — Robovent

Clinical Trial Summary

Clinical Trial Description

Study Design

Related Conditions & MeSH terms