search
Back to results

Robotic Versus Open Primary Ventral Hernia Repair (Robovent)

Primary Purpose

Ventral Hernia

Status
Active
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Switzerland
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Robotic ventral hernia repair
Open ventral hernia repair
Sponsored by
University of Geneva, Switzerland
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Ventral Hernia focused on measuring Open ventral hernia repair, Robotic ventral hernia repair, Surgical site complications, Esthetic satisfaction, Pain, Pain-killers consumption, Costs, Operative time, Early hernia recurrence, General complications

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

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

Sites / Locations

  • Visceral surgery department - Geneva University Hospital

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Active Comparator

Active Comparator

Arm Label

Robotic ventral hernia repair

Open ventral hernia repair

Arm Description

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Surgical site complication
Yes or no

Secondary Outcome Measures

Detailed surgical site complications
Classified according to aforementioned Clavien-Dindo's scoring system (scale from 1 to 5, higher score mean a worse outcome)
General complications, not directly related to surgical site
Classified according to aforementioned Clavien-Dindo's scoring system (scale from 1 to 5, higher score mean a worse outcome)
General pain: Visual Analogue Scale
Evaluated using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, scale from 0 to 10, higher score mean a worse outcome))
Painkillers consumption
Recorded from patient's medical record for in-hospital stay for out-hospital period will be evaluated with consumption recall at each visit
Esthetic satisfaction: European Hernia Society Quality of Life (EuraHS-QoL)
Using European Hernia Society Quality of Life (EuraHS-QoL) ( scale from 0-90, with the lower scores being the most favorable outcome)
Quality of life score
Using European Hernia Society Quality of Life (EuraHS-QoL) form (scale from 0-90, with the lower scores being the most favorable outcome)
In-hospital costs
Hospitalization costs including medications, care and labs, cost of the procedure, diagnosis related group class, total amount billed to the insurance. Derived using REKOLE® method.
Out-hospital costs
Consults and drugs Estimated based on hospital's billing data.
Early recurrence at 1 month
Evaluated by physical evaluation
Defect size
Measured with ruler
Number of device related adverse events by the operating surgeon
Surgical complications which are identified by the operating surgeon as directly related to malfunction of the robotic system

Full Information

First Posted
November 14, 2019
Last Updated
May 2, 2023
Sponsor
University of Geneva, Switzerland
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT04171921
Brief Title
Robotic Versus Open Primary Ventral Hernia Repair
Acronym
Robovent
Official Title
Robotic Versus Open Primary Ventral Hernia Repair: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
May 2023
Overall Recruitment Status
Active, not recruiting
Study Start Date
November 1, 2019 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
September 1, 2023 (Anticipated)
Study Completion Date
September 1, 2023 (Anticipated)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
University of Geneva, Switzerland

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief 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.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Ventral Hernia
Keywords
Open ventral hernia repair, Robotic ventral hernia repair, Surgical site complications, Esthetic satisfaction, Pain, Pain-killers consumption, Costs, Operative time, Early hernia recurrence, General complications

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
Participant
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
162 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Robotic ventral hernia repair
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Title
Open ventral hernia repair
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
Robotic ventral hernia repair
Intervention Description
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
Intervention Name(s)
Open ventral hernia repair
Intervention Description
Standard open pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical hernia repair with closure of fascial defect and non-adsorbable mesh reinforcement
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Surgical site complication
Description
Yes or no
Time Frame
At 31 days after surgery
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Detailed surgical site complications
Description
Classified according to aforementioned Clavien-Dindo's scoring system (scale from 1 to 5, higher score mean a worse outcome)
Time Frame
At 31 days after surgery
Title
General complications, not directly related to surgical site
Description
Classified according to aforementioned Clavien-Dindo's scoring system (scale from 1 to 5, higher score mean a worse outcome)
Time Frame
At 31 days after surgery
Title
General pain: Visual Analogue Scale
Description
Evaluated using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, scale from 0 to 10, higher score mean a worse outcome))
Time Frame
At 31 days after surgery
Title
Painkillers consumption
Description
Recorded from patient's medical record for in-hospital stay for out-hospital period will be evaluated with consumption recall at each visit
Time Frame
At 31 days after surgery
Title
Esthetic satisfaction: European Hernia Society Quality of Life (EuraHS-QoL)
Description
Using European Hernia Society Quality of Life (EuraHS-QoL) ( scale from 0-90, with the lower scores being the most favorable outcome)
Time Frame
At 31 days after surgery
Title
Quality of life score
Description
Using European Hernia Society Quality of Life (EuraHS-QoL) form (scale from 0-90, with the lower scores being the most favorable outcome)
Time Frame
At 31 days after surgery
Title
In-hospital costs
Description
Hospitalization costs including medications, care and labs, cost of the procedure, diagnosis related group class, total amount billed to the insurance. Derived using REKOLE® method.
Time Frame
At day 31 after surgery
Title
Out-hospital costs
Description
Consults and drugs Estimated based on hospital's billing data.
Time Frame
At day 31 after surgery
Title
Early recurrence at 1 month
Description
Evaluated by physical evaluation
Time Frame
At day 31 after surgery
Title
Defect size
Description
Measured with ruler
Time Frame
During surgery
Title
Number of device related adverse events by the operating surgeon
Description
Surgical complications which are identified by the operating surgeon as directly related to malfunction of the robotic system
Time Frame
During surgery

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
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
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Jonathan Douissard, MD
Organizational Affiliation
University of Geneva, Geneva University Hospital
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Visceral surgery department - Geneva University Hospital
City
Geneva
ZIP/Postal Code
1211
Country
Switzerland

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
No
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
21904861
Citation
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.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
26206646
Citation
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.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21538150
Citation
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.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
27399983
Citation
Helgstrand F. National results after ventral hernia repair. Dan Med J. 2016 Jul;63(7):B5258.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
22965649
Citation
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.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
29032495
Citation
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.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
26091995
Citation
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.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
20556448
Citation
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.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24005537
Citation
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.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
27546188
Citation
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.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
19015918
Citation
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.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23095614
Citation
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.
Results Reference
result
PubMed Identifier
32368702
Citation
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.
Results Reference
derived

Learn more about this trial

Robotic Versus Open Primary Ventral Hernia Repair

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs