Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun 24;6(3):zrac057. doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac057

Table 2.

Description of intraoperative variables of a case–control study comparing robotic-assisted transversus abdominis release and open transversus abdominis release

rTAR oTAR P *
n = 90 n = 79
Skin-to-skin operative time (min), mean(s.d.) 242 (82) 188 (90) <0.001
Wound contamination class 0.465
 Clean 87 (96.7) 73 (92.4)
 Clean contaminated 2 (2.2) 4 (5.1)
 Contaminated 1 (1.1) 2 (2.5)
 Dirty 0 (0) 0 (0)
Antibiotic prophylaxis 64 (71.1) 79 (100) <0.001
Mesh type used 0.526
 Polyester 68 (75.6) 61 (77.2)
 Polyvinylidene 17 (18.9) 17 (21.5)
 Polypropylene 2 (2.2) 1 (1.3)
 Unknown 3 (3.3) 0 (0)
Mesh size (cm2), mean(s.d.) 980 (354) 1344 (460) <0.001
Hernia defect closure 89 (98.9) 74 (93.7) 0.119
Combined surgical procedure 1 (1.1) 15 (19.0) <0.001
Intraoperative complications 8 (8.9) 13 (16.5) 0.137

rTAR, robotic-assisted transversus abdominis release; oTAR, open transversus abdominis release. Values are n (%) unless otherwise indicated.

*

For normally distributed continuous variables, an independent samples t test was used. When a normal distribution could not be assumed, a Mann–Whitney U test was used. The chi-squared and Fisher’s test were used to compare categorical data. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) classification15.