Robotic Versus Open Primary Ventral Hernia Repair

NCT ID: NCT04171921

Last Updated: 2023-05-03

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

UNKNOWN

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

162 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2019-11-01

Study Completion Date

2023-09-01

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

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.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Ventral Hernia

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Participants

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Robotic ventral hernia repair

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Robotic ventral hernia repair

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Laparoscopic robotically assisted trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical hernia repair with closure of fascial defect and non-adsorbable mesh reinforcement

Open ventral hernia repair

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Open ventral hernia repair

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Standard open pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical hernia repair with closure of fascial defect and non-adsorbable mesh reinforcement

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Robotic ventral hernia repair

Laparoscopic robotically assisted trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical hernia repair with closure of fascial defect and non-adsorbable mesh reinforcement

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Open ventral hernia repair

Standard open pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical hernia repair with closure of fascial defect and non-adsorbable mesh reinforcement

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Informed Consent as documented by signature
* Aged 18 years or older
* Undergoing primary umbilical or epigastric hernia repair of size between 1cm and 5cm +/-5mm, with mesh reinforcement, in the Visceral Surgery Department of the University Geneva Hospital

Exclusion Criteria

* Patients under corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive treatment
* Pregnancy or breastfeeding
* Intention to become pregnant during the course of the study
* Lack of safe contraception, defined as: Female participants of childbearing potential, not using and not willing to continue using a medically reliable method of contraception for the entire study duration, such as oral, injectable, or implantable contraceptives, or intrauterine contraceptive devices, or who are not using any other method considered sufficiently reliable by the investigator in individual cases. Female participants who are surgically sterilised / hysterectomised or post-menopausal for longer than 2 years are not considered as being of child bearing potential
* Incisional hernia and/or substantial history of intra-abdominal surgery
* Upon anesthesiologist evaluation, clinically significant concomitant disease states which require to shorten operative time at maximum
* Upon anesthesiologist evaluation, clinically significant concomitant disease states being a contra-indication to laparoscopic approach and/or general anesthesia
* Known or suspected non-compliance, drug or alcohol abuse,
* Inability to follow the procedures of the study, e.g. due to language problems, psychological disorders, dementia of the participant
* Previous enrolment into the current study
* Enrolment of the investigator, his/her family members, employees and other dependent persons
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

University of Geneva, Switzerland

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Dr Jonathan Douissard

Staff surgeon visceral surgery department

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Jonathan Douissard, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

University of Geneva, Geneva University Hospital

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Visceral surgery department - Geneva University Hospital

Geneva, , Switzerland

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Switzerland

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Poulose BK, Shelton J, Phillips S, Moore D, Nealon W, Penson D, Beck W, Holzman MD. Epidemiology and cost of ventral hernia repair: making the case for hernia research. Hernia. 2012 Apr;16(2):179-83. doi: 10.1007/s10029-011-0879-9. Epub 2011 Sep 9.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 21904861 (View on PubMed)

Holihan JL, Alawadi Z, Martindale RG, Roth JS, Wray CJ, Ko TC, Kao LS, Liang MK. Adverse Events after Ventral Hernia Repair: The Vicious Cycle of Complications. J Am Coll Surg. 2015 Aug;221(2):478-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.04.026. Epub 2015 May 9.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 26206646 (View on PubMed)

Bisgaard T, Kehlet H, Bay-Nielsen M, Iversen MG, Rosenberg J, Jorgensen LN. A nationwide study on readmission, morbidity, and mortality after umbilical and epigastric hernia repair. Hernia. 2011 Oct;15(5):541-6. doi: 10.1007/s10029-011-0823-z. Epub 2011 May 3.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 21538150 (View on PubMed)

Helgstrand F. National results after ventral hernia repair. Dan Med J. 2016 Jul;63(7):B5258.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 27399983 (View on PubMed)

Reynolds D, Davenport DL, Korosec RL, Roth JS. Financial implications of ventral hernia repair: a hospital cost analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013 Jan;17(1):159-66; discussion p.166-7. doi: 10.1007/s11605-012-1999-y. Epub 2012 Sep 11.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 22965649 (View on PubMed)

Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Sreh A, Khan A, Subar D, Jones L. Laparoscopic versus open umbilical or paraumbilical hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia. 2017 Dec;21(6):905-916. doi: 10.1007/s10029-017-1683-y. Epub 2017 Oct 14.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 29032495 (View on PubMed)

Froylich D, Segal M, Weinstein A, Hatib K, Shiloni E, Hazzan D. Laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia repair in obese patients: a long-term follow-up. Surg Endosc. 2016 Feb;30(2):670-675. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4258-y. Epub 2015 Jun 20.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 26091995 (View on PubMed)

Muysoms FE, Bontinck J, Pletinckx P. Complications of mesh devices for intraperitoneal umbilical hernia repair: a word of caution. Hernia. 2011 Aug;15(4):463-8. doi: 10.1007/s10029-010-0692-x. Epub 2010 Jun 17.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 20556448 (View on PubMed)

Liang MK, Berger RL, Li LT, Davila JA, Hicks SC, Kao LS. Outcomes of laparoscopic vs open repair of primary ventral hernias. JAMA Surg. 2013 Nov;148(11):1043-8. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.3587.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24005537 (View on PubMed)

Tandon A, Pathak S, Lyons NJ, Nunes QM, Daniels IR, Smart NJ. Meta-analysis of closure of the fascial defect during laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair. Br J Surg. 2016 Nov;103(12):1598-1607. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10268. Epub 2016 Aug 22.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 27546188 (View on PubMed)

Hilling DE, Koppert LB, Keijzer R, Stassen LP, Oei IH. Laparoscopic correction of umbilical hernias using a transabdominal preperitoneal approach: results of a pilot study. Surg Endosc. 2009 Aug;23(8):1740-4. doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-0177-5. Epub 2008 Nov 18.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19015918 (View on PubMed)

Colavita PD, Tsirline VB, Belyansky I, Walters AL, Lincourt AE, Sing RF, Heniford BT. Prospective, long-term comparison of quality of life in laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia repair. Ann Surg. 2012 Nov;256(5):714-22; discussion 722-3. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182734130.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 23095614 (View on PubMed)

Douissard J, Meyer J, Dupuis A, Peloso A, Mareschal J, Toso C, Hagen M. Robotic versus open primary ventral hernia repair: A randomized controlled trial (Robovent Trial). Int J Surg Protoc. 2020 Apr 4;21:27-31. doi: 10.1016/j.isjp.2020.03.004. eCollection 2020.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 32368702 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

2019-00113

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Mesh Type in Ventral Hernia Repair
NCT03091790 COMPLETED NA