The Systematic Review: The impact of minimally invasive techniques on the outcomes of inguinal hernia repair
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/QS.2025.44.62934Keywords
Inguinal hernia, laparoscopic hernia repair, tep, tapp, robot-assisted repair, outcomesAbstract
Background
This review examines the impact of minimally invasive techniques—laparoscopic (TEP, TAPP) and robotic—on inguinal hernia repair outcomes. Based on literature from 2020–2025, it shows that when performed by experienced surgeons, these methods offer faster recovery, less pain, and recurrence rates comparable to open surgery. Robotic repair is particularly promising for complex cases, though it involves higher costs and longer operative times. The review emphasizes the importance of tailoring surgical choices to the surgeon’s expertise, patient profile, and healthcare resources.
Aim of the Study
The study aims to evaluate the impact of minimally invasive techniques on the outcomes of inguinal hernia repair.
Materials and methods
This systematic review focuses on laparoscopic and robotic repairs compared to open surgery. Outcomes analyzed include operative time, postoperative pain, hospital stay, recurrence, complications, and patient quality of life. Studies published between 2018 and 2025 were sourced from PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Included studies span randomized trials, cohort studies, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews. Methodological quality was critically assessed.
Results
Minimally invasive techniques—especially robotic and laparoscopic repairs—were associated with faster recovery, lower postoperative pain, and shorter hospital stays than open repair. Although robotic surgery had longer operative times, this improved with experience. Recurrence rates were similar across techniques, while robotic repairs showed fewer complications.
Conclusions
Minimally invasive approaches improve patient outcomes in inguinal hernia repair. Laparoscopic and robotic methods reduce pain and hospital stay. Robotic surgery is beneficial for complex cases but requires more resources and training. Surgical approach should be tailored to the patient and institutional capability.
References
1. Ma Q, Jing W, Liu X, Liu J, Liu M, Chen J. The global, regional, and national burden and its trends of inguinal, femoral, and abdominal hernia from 1990 to 2019: findings from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Study – a cross-sectional study. Int J Surg. 2023 Mar;109(3):333-42. https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000000217
2. Haladu N, Alabi A, Brazzelli M, Imamura M, Ahmed I, Ramsay G, et al. Open versus laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia: an overview of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Surg Endosc. 2022 Jul;36(7):4685-700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09161-6
3. Solaini L, Cavaliere D, Avanzolini A, Rocco G, Ercolani G. Robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg. 2022 Aug;16(4):775-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01312-6
4. Burton V, Perez AJ. Comparison of open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Mini-invasive Surg. 2021;5:26. https://doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2021.26
5. Pokala B, Armijo PR, Flores L, Hennings D, Oleynikov D. Minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair is superior to open: a national database review. Hernia. 2019 Jun;23(3):593-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-01934-8
6. Bittner IV, J.G., Cesnik, L.W., Kirwan, T. et al. Patient perceptions of acute pain and activity disruption following inguinal hernia repair: a propensity-matched comparison of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open approaches. J Robotic Surg 12, 625–632 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0790-9
7. Shah MY, Raut P, Wilkinson TRV, Agrawal V. Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair compared with Lichtenstein tension-free open mesh inguinal hernia repair: a prospective randomized study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Jul 1;101(26):e29746. http://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000029746
8. Yoneyama T, Nakashima M, Takeuchi M, Kawakami K. Comparison of laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair in adults: A retrospective cohort study using a medical claims database. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2022 Jul;15(3):513–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/ases.13039
9. Janjua H, Cousin-Peterson E, Barry TM, Kuo MC, Baker MS, Kuo PC. The paradox of the robotic approach to inguinal hernia repair in the inpatient setting. Am J Surg. 2020;219:497–501. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.08.015
10. Kakiashvili E, Bez M, Shakra IA, Ganam S, Bickel A, Merei F, Drobot A, Bogouslavski G, Kassis W, Khatib K. Robotic inguinal hernia repair: Is it a new era in the management of inguinal hernia? Asian J Surg. 2021;44:93–98. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2020.09.013
11. Okamoto N, Mineta S, Mishima K, Fujiyama Y, Wakabayashi T, Fujita S, Sakamoto J, Wakabayashi G. Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic transabdominal peritoneal repair for unilateral inguinal hernia: a propensity-score matched analysis. Hernia. 2023 Oct;27(5):1131–1138. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-022-02730-7
12. Choi YS, Kim KD, Choi MS, Heo YS, Yi JW, Choe YM. Initial experience of robot-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair by a single surgeon in South Korea. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023 Mar 15;59(3):582. http://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59030582
13. Viera OJ, Florin JL, Morales KE. Long-term outcomes of robotic inguinal hernia repair (r-TAPP): a retrospective review of 434 consecutive cases by a single surgeon with 3–8 years of follow-up. J Robot Surg. 2025;19:57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02220-9
14. Almutairi H, Alshammari RS, Alharbi MJ, et al. Laparoscopic management of inguinal hernia: a systematic review and updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cureus. 2024 Feb 14;16(2):e54192. http://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.54192
15. Gamagami, R., Dickens, E., Gonzalez, A. et al. Open versus robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (R-TAPP) inguinal hernia repair: a multicenter matched analysis of clinical outcomes. Hernia 22, 827–836 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-018-1769-1
16. Khewater T, Al Madshush AM, Altidlawi MI, Faya H, Alanazi M, Alqahtani MMM, et al. Comparing robot-assisted and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus. 2024 May 23;16(5):e60959. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.60959
17. Amundson JR, Attaar M, Forester B, Francis S, Kuchta K, Denham W, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair are safe and effective after prior pelvic or low abdominal surgery. Am J Surg. 2023 Feb;225(2):252-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2022.08.011
18. Edelman DS. Robotic inguinal hernia repair - update 2022 during the SARS-COVID-19 pandemic. Surg Technol Int. 2023 Sep 15;42:168-72. https://doi.org/10.52198/23.STI.42.HR1655
19. Huerta S, Garza AM. A systematic review of open, laparoscopic, and robotic inguinal hernia repair: management of inguinal hernias in the 21st century. J Clin Med. 2025;14(3):990. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14030990
20. Janjua H, Cousin-Peterson E, Barry TM, Kuo MC, Baker MS, Kuo PC. The paradox of the robotic approach to inguinal hernia repair in the inpatient setting. Am J Surg. 2020 Mar;219(3):497–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.09.012
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Maria Grys, Marta Piotraszewska, Magdalena Bartold, Filip Kochański, Janina Pohrybieniuk, Karolina Wołk, Dominika Błonka, Jan Pietrzak, Aleksandra Jaskulska, Magda Skudzińska
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 221
Number of citations: 0
