Abstract

Background: Robotic inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) has gained increasing adoption in minimally invasive surgery; however, its clinical advantages over conventional laparoscopic and open techniques remain uncertain. Methods: This review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Published systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing robotic, laparoscopic, and open inguinal hernia repair in adult patients were identified. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Outcomes evaluated included operative time, postoperative complications, hernia recurrence, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, and readmission. Results: Fifteen meta-analyses encompassing more than 200,000 patients were included. Robotic inguinal hernia repair was consistently associated with longer operative times compared with laparoscopic and open techniques. Overall complication rates, hernia recurrence, postoperative pain, and readmission were largely comparable between robotic and conventional approaches. Some analyses reported a higher incidence of surgical-site infection following robotic repair. All included reviews were rated as low or critically low quality using AMSTAR-2. Conclusion: Current meta-analytic evidence suggests that robotic inguinal hernia repair is a safe and effective alternative to established techniques, with comparable clinical outcomes but longer operative duration. High-quality randomized trials and cost-effectiveness studies are required to define its definitive role in clinical practice.

• 1.   Page M.J., McKenzie J.E., Bossuyt P.M., et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg 2021; 88: 105906. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906.
• 2.   Abdullah A., Saeed H., Ahmad M.H. Enhancing clarity and methodological rigor in umbrella reviews. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2024; 86: 6352–4. DOI:10.1097/MS9.0000000000002536.
• 3.   Qabbani A., Aboumarzouk O.M., ElBakry T., et al. Robotic inguinal hernia repair: systematic review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg 2021; 91(11): 2277–87. DOI: 10.1111/ans.16505.
• 4.   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; 16(4): 775–81. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-021-01312-6.
• 5.   de’Angelis N., Schena C.A., Moszkowicz D., et al. Robotic surgery for inguinal and ventral hernia repair: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Surg Endosc 2024; 38(1): 24–46. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10545-5.
• 6.   Khewater T., Al Madshush A.M., Altidlawi M.I., et al. Comparing robot-assisted and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus 2024; 16(5): e60959. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.60959.
• 7.   Li X., Li Y.J., Dong H., Wang D.C., Wei J. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair for inguinal hernia. PLoS One 2024; 19(2): e0298989. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298989.
• 8.   Huerta S. 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. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14030990.
• 9.   Barranquero A.G., Martín Ferrero L, González A. Robotic or laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair? A narrative review of the current literature. Laparosc Endosc Robot Surg 2025; DOI: 10.1016/j.lers.2025.12.001.
• 10.   Brucchi F., Sassun R., Lauricella S., et al. Robotic vs. laparoscopic TAPP: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials on shortterm outcomes. Hernia 2026; 30(1): 36. DOI: 10.1007/s10029-025-03550-1.
• 11.   Vossler J., Pavlosky C., Patel N., et al. Predictors of robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: analysis of 29000 cases. J Surg Res 2019; 241: 247–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.03.056.
• 12.   Holleran T.J., Napolitano M.A., Sparks A.D., El-Sayed I.H. Trends and outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic inguinal hernia repair in the Veterans Affairs system. Hernia 2022; 26(2): 313–21. DOI: 10.1007/s10029-021-02419-3.
• 13.   Aiolfi A., Cavalli M., Micheletto G., et al. Primary inguinal hernia: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic TAPP, TEP, and robotic preperitoneal repair. Hernia 2019; 23(3): 473–84. DOI: 10.1007/s10029-019-01964-2.
• 14.   Cavazzola E.J. Inguinal hernia repair: is there a benefit to using the robot? Surg Endosc 2018; 32(4): 2131–6. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5911-4.
• 15.   Memon M.A., Cooper N.J., Memon B., et al. Comparison of open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernias: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials. Br J Surg 2003; 90(5): 450–6. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.4134.

Data Sharing Statement

Funding