Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair After Prostatectomy: How to Navigate Safely

Introduction: In recent decades, minimally invasive approaches have found their place in treating a specific subset of patients with inguinal hernias, predominantly those with recurrent or bilateral disease. Classically, prior history of urologic pelvic operations, such as prostatectomy, has been listed as relative contraindication for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair. As the adoption of the robotics platform continues to grow, we aim to outline a feasible robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair technique in patients with previous prostatectomies. We report the outcomes of 15 patients who underwent repair at 2 institutions. Methods: This is a retrospective case series of 15 patients who underwent robotic transabdominal preperitoneal approach repair of their inguinal hernias after prostatectomy. Demographics, intraoperative variables, and outcomes of our cases are described. Results: Fifteen patients were included in our cohort. All patients had a history of prostatectomy (7 open, 2 laparoscopic, and 6 robotic) due to prostate cancer. Median age was 70 years old (range: 60 to 89 y), with a median body mass index of 26.3 kg/m²(range: 20.5 to 37.4 kg/m²). Hernia defects were bilateral in 6 patients and unilateral in the remaining 9 (right; 6, left; 3). The shortest interval between prostatectomy and subsequent hernia repair was 4 months (range: 4 to 216 mo). The median operative time was 139 min (range: 91 to 281 min). All defects were repaired using a polypropylene mesh except in 1 case, where a coated monofilament polyester mesh was used after having a large peritoneal defect to close, preventing future adhesions to the bowel. Mesh sizes used were large (16×11 cm), extra-large (17×12 cm) for anatomic mesh, and 20×15 cm for the monofilament polyester mesh. The mesh was fixed in 14 of 15 cases. Fixation was accomplished with absorbable suture (n=13), barbed suture (n=1), and fibrin sealant (n=1). Peritoneal closure was always performed using a continuous running v-loc suture. There were no documented major intraoperative complications, no 30-day readmission, or recurrences recorded within the follow-up period. Postoperatively, only 2 seromas and 1 hematoma were documented during the follow-up period. Conclusions: Robotic inguinal hernia repairs in patients with previous prostatectomy is safe and feasible in most patients. Larger patient series are needed to confirm these findings.