Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2025 Mar 25;29(1):122.
doi: 10.1007/s10029-025-03313-y.

In-hospital outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in obese patients: a national inpatient sample analysis 2005-2020

Hung-Jia Pai  1 , Ching-Chuan Hsieh  2
Affiliations
Comparative Study

In-hospital outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in obese patients: a national inpatient sample analysis 2005-2020

Hung-Jia Pai et al. Hernia. .

Abstract

Purpose: Obesity is associated with complications in surgical procedures and postoperative outcomes. This study aims to compare in-hospital outcomes of robotic inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) in obese patients.

Methods: Data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2005 to 2020 were used in this study. Inclusion criteria were ≥ 18 years old with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m²) who underwent either RIHR or LIHR. Data were analyzed for in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), total hospital costs, and complications.

Results: A total of 647 patients were included. Multivariable analysis showed RIHR was associated with a significantly lower risk of any complications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36, 0.77), shorter LOS (adjusted Beta [aBeta] = -0.94, 95%CI: -1.02, -0.86), and higher total hospital costs (aBeta = 5.62, 95%CI: 4.80, 6.44). Stratified analysis revealed that the lower risk of complications with RIHR was consistent across most subgroups, including age < 60 years (aOR = 0.56) and ≥ 60 years (aOR = 0.53), non-smokers (aOR = 0.53) and smokers (aOR = 0.48), non-hypertensive (aOR = 0.27) and hypertensive patients (aOR = 0.66), and non-diabetic (aOR = 0.53) and diabetic patients (aOR = 0.44), as well as patients admitted during 2017-2020 (aOR = 0.50).

Conclusions: RIHR is associated with lower complication risk and shorter LOS, but higher hospital costs compared to LIHR for obese patients. These findings suggest that RIHR may offer better short-term outcomes for obese patients, which should be considered in surgical decision-making. Given the retrospective nature of this analysis and the potential for selection bias and residual confounding, future randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings and provide more robust evidence to guide surgical decision-making.

Keywords: Inguinal hernia repair; Laparoscopic; National inpatient sample (NIS); Obesity; Robot-assisted.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflicts of interest: Hung-Jia Pai and Ching-Chuan Hsieh have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Financial disclosures: None.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of patient selection
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Shakil A, Aparicio K, Barta E, Munez K (2020) Inguinal hernias: diagnosis and management. Am Fam Physician 102(8):487–492 - PubMed
    1. Köckerling F, Simons MP (2018) Current concepts of inguinal hernia repair. Visc Med 34(2):145–150. 10.1159/000487278 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Takata MC, Duh QY (2008) Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Surg Clin North Am 88(1):157–178, x. 10.1016/j.suc.2007.10.005 - PubMed
    1. Podolsky D, Novitsky Y (2020) Robotic inguinal hernia repair. Surg Clin North Am 100(2):409–415. 10.1016/j.suc.2019.12.010 - PubMed
    1. Saito T, Fukami Y, Kurahashi S, Yasui K, Uchino T et al (2022) Current status and future perspectives of robotic inguinal hernia repair. Surg Today 2022;52(10):1395–1404. 10.1007/s00595-021-02413-3 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources