Purpose The use of mesh is a common practice in ventral hernia repair (VHR). Lack of consensus on which prosthetic material works better in different settings remains. This meta-analysis aims to summarize the available evidence on hernia recurrence and complications after repair with synthetic, biologic, or biosynthetic/bioabsorbable meshes in hernias grade 2–3 of the Ventral Hernia Working Group modified classification. Methods A literature search was conducted in January 2021 using Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and MEDLINE (via PubMed) databases. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and observational studies with adult patients undergoing VHR with either synthetic, biologic, or biosynthetic/bioabsorbable mesh were included. Outcomes were hernia recurrence, Surgical Site Occurrence (SSO), Surgical Site Infection (SSI), 30 days re-intervention, and infected mesh removal. Random-effects meta-analyses of pooled proportions were performed. Quality of the studies was assessed, and heterogeneity was explored through sensitivity analyses. Results 25 articles were eligible for inclusion. Mean age ranged from 47 to 64 years and participants’ follow-up ranged from 1 to 36 months. Biosynthetic/bioabsorbable mesh reported a 9% (95% CI 2–19%) rate of hernia recurrence, lower than synthetic and biologic meshes. Biosynthetic/bioabsorbable mesh repair also showed a lower incidence of SSI, with a 14% (95% CI 6–24%) rate, and there was no evidence of infected mesh removal. Rates of seroma were similar for the different materials. Conclusions This meta-analysis did not show meaningful differences among materials. However, the best proportions towards lower recurrence and complication rates after grade 2–3 VHR were after using biosynthetic/slowly absorbable mesh reinforcement. These results should be taken with caution, as head-to-head comparative studies between biosynthetic and synthetic/biologic meshes are lacking. Although, biosynthetic/bioabsorbable materials could be considered an alternative to synthetic and biologic mesh reinforcement in these settings.

Introduction: There has been a rapid proliferation of the robotic approach to inguinal hernia, mainly in the United States, as it has shown similar outcomes to the laparoscopic approach but with a significant increase in associated costs. Our objective is to conduct a cost analysis in our setting (Spanish National Health System). Materials and methods: A retrospective single-center comparative study on inguinal hernia repair using a robotic approach versus laparoscopic approach. Results: A total of 98 patients who underwent either robotic or laparoscopic TAPP inguinal hernia repair between October 2021 and July 2023 were analyzed. Out of these 98 patients, 20 (20.4%) were treated with the robotic approach, while 78 (79.6%) underwent the laparoscopic approach. When comparing both approaches, no significant differences were found in terms of complications, recurrences, or readmissions. However, the robotic group exhibited a longer surgical time (86 ± 33.07 min vs. 40 ± 14.46 min, p < 0.001), an extended hospital stays (1.6 ± 0.503 days vs. 1.13 ± 0.727 days, p < 0.007), as well as higher procedural costs (2318.63 ± 205.15 € vs. 356.81 ± 110.14 €, p < 0.001) and total hospitalization costs (3272.48 ± 408.49 € vs. 1048.61 ± 460.06 €, p < 0.001). These results were consistent when performing subgroup analysis for unilateral and bilateral hernias. Conclusions: The benefits observed in terms of recurrence rates and post-surgical complications do not justify the additional costs incurred by the robotic approach to inguinal hernia within the national public healthcare system. Nevertheless, it represents a simpler way to initiate the robotic learning curve, justifying its use in a training context.