Abstract
Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most common surgical procedures performed globally. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) is recognized globally to be effective and safe, with advantages over open surgery, but its implementation across the African continent has been slow, with only 12 countries reporting implementation, and only 3.3% of inguinal hernia repairs in sub-Saharan Africa performed using laparoscopic techniques. Robotic surgery, although still emerging within the continent, with around 20 robots primarily used in urology across South Africa, Egypt, Morocco, Angola, and Tunisia, no reports of robotic inguinal hernia repair currently exist. Progress, however, is being observed with the growing interest from surgical societies, private-sector robotic expansion, and humanitarian missions introducing mesh-based and limited laparoscopic procedures. Limitations include the low global utilization of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for hernia repair despite guideline recommendations. This has been attributed to training challenges, steep learning curve, and limited evidence of benefit for bilateral and recurrent hernias. African-specific challenges include costs, inadequate training opportunities, surgeon preference, ongoing debates regarding its necessity in low-resource settings, lack of institutional support, and resource prioritization for other MIS procedures such as cholecystectomy and prostatectomy. Despite ongoing challenges, investments in research, training and cost-effective equipment, increased availability of mesh, and integration of humanitarian hernia missions into national training systems, can enhance adoption and contribute to better surgical outcomes for patients. This narrative review presents the present state of robotic and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in Africa, as well as the current challenges, and recommendations to improve adoption.
Introduction
Inguinal hernia repair is a major surgical procedure worldwide, and due to the burden and feasibility of repair, the World Health Organization has categorized inguinal hernia as a “priority 1 surgical condition” [1, 2]. In Africa, the disease burden of inguinal hernias is high but only a fraction are treated, resulting in high rates of complications and mortality [3]. While there are about 175 cases per 100,000 people annually, only about 25 per 100,000 are treated [3, 4]. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques, including robotic and laparoscopic surgeries, have brought about several benefits to patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair by reducing postoperative pain, shortening hospital stays, complications, and facilitating quicker recovery [5, 6]. However, adoption of these new techniques in Africa remains low [7]. This is a review of the present status of robotic and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in Africa. A study of this nature has never been published in the English language, and this represents the first analysis of the current status of robotic and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in Africa with the goal of promoting a constructive discussion regarding challenges and opportunities for development in the future.
Methodology
A comprehensive narrative review was conducted to map the current landscape of inguinal hernia repair in Africa. Electronic databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, and AJOL were searched for articles published up to December 2025. The search strategy combined terms for surgical techniques (“laparoscopy,” “robotic,” “TAPP,” “TEP”) with geographical descriptors (“Africa,” “Sub-Saharan,” and individual country names). The full search strategy is shown in Appendix 1. Observational studies and systematic reviews on MIS for inguinal hernia repair in Africa were considered eligible for review. The articles were screened, and data was extracted to present this review. References of included articles were also screened to ensure a coverage of grey literature and conference abstracts relevant to the region.
Current Adoption of Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair in Africa
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) has been extensively researched globally, and is now regarded as safe and efficient [8, 9]. The adoption of LIHR in Africa is increasing gradually, albeit more slowly compared to other settings [7, 10]. A retrospective audit conducted at a facility in South Africa demonstrated the viability and short-term efficacy of LIHR with potential for broader use on the continent [11]. A study focusing on adult groin hernia surgery in sub-Saharan Africa revealed that only 3.3% (750) of 23,657 procedures reviewed were performed using the Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) or Total Extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques [7]. Mesh fixation devices, trocars, laparoscopic suturing devices and other necessary equipment may be challenging for low-income facilities to procure [12]. Other barriers are lack of training opportunities and infrastructural constraints. On the other hand, Bassini, an open pure tissue technique, has been found to be predominant in sub-Saharan Africa because it is cost-effective and easy to learn [7]. A total of 12 countries, shown in Figure 1, have reported LIHR [7, 10, 11, 13–20], although the overall number of procedures performed is low compared to other settings [7, 10]. While the early practice of LIHR in Africa was reported in the late 1990s, there was only little progress until 2010 when the majority of reports began to come to light [10]. A systematic review which assessed the safety and effectiveness of LIHR in Africa reported only 2,329 procedures [10]. Another study recorded that only 1.54% (98/6381) of the laparoscopic general surgical procedures reviewed were performed for inguinal hernia repair [21]. The findings in these African-based studies are comparable to a recent global cohort report that revealed that as of 2024, access to minimally invasive repair was estimated at 12.5% in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and 1.1% in low-income countries (LICs) [22].
FIGURE 1
Current Status of Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair in Africa
Robotic-assisted surgery represents a progression in MIS, offering advantages over laparoscopy like enhanced dexterity, three-dimensional visualization, and ergonomic benefits for surgeons [23]. Although some LMICs in other regions have begun utilizing robotic surgery for inguinal hernia repair, this has not yet been reported in Africa [24–26]. In Asia, countries like India and Pakistan have reported adoption [24, 25]. Presently, there are approximately 20 surgical robots in Africa being used in various surgical specialties [26, 27]. A total of 12 of these robots are available in private healthcare facilities in South Africa [26–30], and two are in private institutions in Angola and Morocco [31, 32]. The remaining six are in use in public hospitals in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco [26, 27, 32]. These surgical robots are primarily used for urological procedures especially prostatectomy, while implementation in other areas such as abdominal wall surgery is still relatively developing [26].
Discussion
Challenges Hindering the Adoption of Minimally Invasive Techniques for Hernia Repair in Africa
There is generally low use of MIS for hernia repair globally regardless of income group, although lower in LMICs [22]. This is despite international guidelines recommending MIS when expertise and equipment is available [22, 33]. Its use is limited because of challenges such as technical difficulty, steep learning curve for surgeons, alongside limited access to specialized training. There is also a lack of evidence regarding clinical benefit for patients with bilateral and recurrent hernias [33]. The high costs of laparoscopic and robotic equipment, and shortage of skilled surgeons proficient in MIS are other notable barriers in resource-constrained settings such as in Africa [6]. The need to optimize resources may explain the wider adoption of laparoscopy for other less demanding and higher volume procedures like cholecystectomy and appendectomy, compared to hernia repair [21]. In addition, perceptions by surgeons and patients regarding LIHR affect its adoption [34]. Surgeons who are primarily used to open techniques may be hesitant to adopt laparoscopic methods which require additional training, especially when institutional support is not available [34]. Additionally, there are debates regarding the most appropriate method of repair, and whether the MIS is necessary for low-resource settings [35].
Present Progress and Innovations
There are recent initiatives across Africa, which may be used as an inspiration in the new efforts to achieve an enhanced adoption rate of MIS to repair inguinal hernias. For example, training programs facilitated by international and local organizations have offered hands-on training to surgical trainees in Uganda and Nigeria [36]. In Rwanda, the establishment of “Institute for Research into Cancer of the Digestive System (IRCAD) Africa”, an international training center with minimally invasive and simulation technologies, has provided training opportunities for surgeons [27, 37]. Likewise, the Society of Endoscopic Surgery in South Africa runs laparoscopic hernia fellowships and maintains national guidelines and a hernia registry [38]. The increased availability of robotic equipment in the private sector in South Africa, Morocco, and Angola can also serve as inspiration for further private sector involvement across the continent [30–32]. Several surgical congresses are increasingly featuring sessions on robotic hernia repair, indicating growing interest and suggesting that the first reports will likely emerge soon [39, 40]. These include the Egyptian Society of Laparoscopic Surgery [39], the South African Society of Endoscopic Surgeons [40], the Algerian Society of Wall Surgery [41], and the Moroccan Society of Surgery [42]. Volunteer teams (humanitarian missions) have filled a gap in the provision of treatment services for inguinal hernia repair in Africa [43, 44]. Examples are “Operation Hernia” founded by the United Kingdom, and “Surgeons for Africa” founded by Germany, which have delivered high-volume open mesh hernioplasties in Ghana and Rwanda [43]. In Nigeria, missions have contributed to reduced local burden of inguinal hernia [45], and organizations like “GEANCO” Foundation have introduced laparoscopic procedures in their expanded surgical missions [44]. In certain African countries, private and tertiary hospitals have begun expanding their services to provide LIHR [37, 46–48]. For example, LIHR, is taught as a novel approach in tertiary facilities in South Africa [37]. Furthermore, initiatives to expand training access for MIS, such as partnerships with global surgery societies, offer potential for broader applications in the future [48]. There are also indications of gradual progress in robotic surgery’s contribution to surgical care in Africa. Countries such as South Africa and Egypt have taken early steps toward integrating robotic systems into their surgical practice, with growing interest in exploring its application beyond urology [26]. While high costs remain a barrier, the landscape of robotic surgery is evolving with the introduction of new, more cost-effective ‘modular’ robotic systems (such as the Hugo™ RAS system and CMR Versius) [49]. Unlike the traditional multi-port systems that require large dedicated operating theaters, these open-console, modular platforms offer flexibility and lower operational costs, making them potentially more suitable for resource-constrained settings in Africa [24]. The recent introduction of such systems in tertiary centers in developing regions suggests a shift towards more accessible robotic architecture.
Pathways to Further Progress
To enhance the adoption of laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repairs in Africa, several strategies can be considered. Conducting research to obtain the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive hernia repairs in Africa, compared with open techniques is important to inform policy decisions and encourage adoption [48]. Open non-mesh repair has been found to be the prevalent surgical technique in sub-Saharan Africa, accounting for up to 65% (15,510/23,657) of all inguinal hernia repair [7]. International guidelines and several global hernia societies have recommended the mesh for inguinal hernia repair because it reduces recurrence, and it is cost-effective [33]. Efforts to increase the availability of mesh for all patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair in Africa, as well as training programs for mesh techniques should therefore be the first step towards expanding access to surgical advances and technologies [22]. Incorporating basic laparoscopy training into institutional surgical training programs can help empower surgical trainees with both theoretical knowledge and practical surgical skills [50]. Partnerships with international institutions and organizations can alleviate financial burdens of the initial implementation costs in order to facilitate adoption [51]. Practical steps to implement training in robotic hernia repair have been modeled by the European Hernia Society (EHS) [52]. This involves simulation, “train-the-trainer”, and cadaveric robotic hernia courses. For implementation, regional training hubs should be created in national teaching hospitals or academic centers, and a validated stepwise curriculum should be adopted. The EHS pathway is an example of such a curriculum (pre-course e-learning → simulator proficiency benchmarks → cadaver or animal labs → supervised or proctorship practice → independent practice) [52]. Regarding the status of robotic surgery certificates, there is currently no unified, continent-wide credentialing framework in Africa, and data on local certification standards are scarce. To address this, African surgical societies can leverage the experience of established systems, such as in the United States, where the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) implemented consensus recommendations for robotic credentialing [53]. Therefore, adopting a similar curriculum-based certification model in Africa is recommended to facilitate the safe and effective integration of robotic surgery. Telesurgery and remote mentoring can be used with hands-on sessions to deliver training courses. The IRCAD online courses, for example use such hybrid formats [54, 55]. For telesurgery and remote proctorship to be viable, investment in digital infrastructure is a prerequisite. The latency requirements for safe robotic telesurgery necessitate stable high-speed internet (e.g., 5G or fiber optics) [55]. Therefore, advocacy for surgical robotics in Africa must go hand-in-hand with national initiatives to improve digital connectivity, ensuring that remote training hubs in South Africa, Egypt, or Rwanda can effectively mentor surgeons in remote locations without signal latency compromising patient safety. For sustainability purposes, “train-the-trainer” activities should be used to create local faculty and reduce dependence. The humanitarian hernia missions mentioned earlier can also be leveraged towards capacity building for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs through collaborations with tertiary institutions and health ministries [43, 56]. Missions can implement “train-the-trainer” courses, which will allow visiting surgeons to provide practical guidance and training to local surgeons, and also facilitate the donation of MIS equipment through strategic partnerships with equipment manufacturers [56]. A summary of the challenges hindering adoption, present progress and innovations, and pathways to further progress is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1
| Category | Summary |
|---|---|
| Challenges hindering adoption | Low global utilization of MIS for hernia repair despite guideline recommendations |
| Technical difficulty and steep learning curve for laparoscopic and robotic hernia repair | |
| Limited access to specialized training and few skilled surgeons proficient in MIS | |
| Limited evidence of clinical benefit for bilateral and recurrent hernias | |
| High costs of laparoscopic instruments, meshes, and robotic systems | |
| Resource intensity of LIHR compared with higher-volume MIS procedures (e.g., cholecystectomy, appendectomy) | |
| Surgeon and patient perceptions: hesitancy toward MIS, and preference for familiar open techniques | |
| Institutional barriers: lack of support, limited training programs | |
| Debates about suitability of MIS for low-resource settings | |
| Present progress and innovations | Hands-on training programs in Rwanda, Uganda, and Nigeria, supported by international and local organizations |
| Establishment of IRCAD Africa (Rwanda) providing state-of-the-art MIS and simulation training | |
| Society of endoscopic surgery in South Africa offering laparoscopic hernia fellowships, national guidelines, and a hernia registry | |
| Growing private-sector investment in robotic systems | |
| Increasing adoption of laparoscopic hernia repair in private and tertiary centers across Africa | |
| Humanitarian hernia missions providing high-volume open repairs, skills exposure, and beginning to introduce MIS techniques including laparoscopy | |
| Pathways to Accelerate progress | Conduct outcome and cost-effectiveness research comparing MIS vs. open hernia repair to guide policy |
| Increase access to mesh and mesh-based training for open and MIS repairs | |
| Integrate basic laparoscopy training into surgical residency curricula | |
| Partnerships with international bodies to reduce financial strain and support early implementation | |
| Adopt structured robotic hernia training, modeled after EHS curricula | |
| Develop regional training hubs (e.g., IRCAD Africa; national teaching hospitals) | |
| Expand remote learning using telesurgery, tele-mentoring, and hybrid courses | |
| Establish train-the-trainer programs to build sustainable local centers |
Summary of challenges, progress, and pathways to enhance adoption of minimally invasive hernia repair in Africa.
Limitations
This review has certain limitations. While the authorship is expanded to include a multi-national perspective (Nigeria, USA, Iraq, and Peru), the primary African context relies heavily on data and experiences from West Africa (specifically Nigeria), a lower-middle-income setting. Consequently, the interpretation of adoption patterns may differ from the personal experiences of surgeons in upper-middle-income African nations, such as South Africa or Algeria, where resources and infrastructure are comparatively advanced. Future reviews involving a broader consortium of African surgeons from diverse economic regions would be beneficial to provide a more holistic pan-African perspective.
Conclusion
The adoption of laparoscopy for inguinal hernia repair in Africa faces challenges, and the application of robotic surgery for hernia repair is yet to be reported. Alongside continued investments in training, research and healthcare infrastructure, the present signs of progress indicate wider future use of surgical advances in the management of hernia in Africa. There is ample opportunity to promote surgical education and collaboration in the African continent to use the local talent while enabling its surgeons to have access to technological advances and serve their communities and patients.
Statements
Author contributions
AF: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. MS and PG: Writing – review and editing. RO: Supervision, Validation, Writing – review and editing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The authors(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1.
MorrisonZKashyapSNirujogiVL. Adult Inguinal Hernia. InStatPearls. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing (2023). Available online at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537241/ (Accessed February 26, 2025).
2.
MockCCherianMJuillardCDonkorPBicklerSJamisonDet alDeveloping Priorities for Addressing Surgical Conditions Globally: Furthering the Link Between Surgery and Public Health Policy. World J Surg (2010) 34(3):381–5. 10.1007/s00268-009-0263-4
3.
Ohene-YeboahMAbantangaFA. Inguinal Hernia Disease in Africa: A Common but Neglected Surgical Condition. West Afri J Med (2011) 30(2):77–83.
4.
WilliamsBMPurcellLNVarelaCGallaherJCharlesA. Non Reducible Inguinal Hernias in Malawi: An Occupational Hazard. Hernia (2021) 25:1339–44. 10.1007/s10029-020-02337-w
5.
HatewarAMahakalkarCKshirsagarSSohanPRDixitSBikkumallaSet alFrom Meshes to Minimally Invasive Techniques: A Comprehensive Review of Modern Hernia Repair Approaches. Cureus (2024) 16(8):e66206. 10.7759/cureus.66206
6.
DonkorCGonzalezAGallasMRHelbigMWeinsteinCRodriguezJ. Current Perspectives in Robotic Hernia Repair. Robot Surg Res Rev (2017) 5:57–67. 10.2147/RSRR.S101809
7.
NdongATendengJNDialloACDiaoMLSowOMawuliSDet alAdult Groin Hernia Surgery in Sub-saharan Africa: A 20-Year Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Hernia (2023) 27(1):157–72. 10.1007/s10029-022-02669-9
8.
SalehFOkrainecAD'SouzaNKwongJJacksonTD. Safety of Laparoscopic and Open Approaches for Repair of the Unilateral Primary Inguinal Hernia: An Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes. Am J Surg (2014) 208(2):195–201. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.10.017
9.
SolainiLCavaliereDAvanzoliniARoccoGErcolaniG. Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Robot Surg (2022) 1:1–7. 10.1007/s11701-021-01312-6
10.
FayePMNdongANiasseAThiamOToureAOCisseM. Safety and Effectiveness of Laparoscopic Adult Groin Hernia Repair in Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Hernia (2024) 28(2):355–65. 10.1007/s10029-023-02931-8
11.
MoodieBKotoZM. Retrospective Audit of Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair at a South African Tertiary Academic Hospital. S Afr J Surg (2020) 58(4):187–91.
12.
ChaoTEMandigoMOpoku-AnaneJMaineR. Systematic Review of Laparoscopic Surgery in Low-and Middle-Income Countries: Benefits, Challenges, and Strategies. Surg Endosc (2016) 30:1–0. 10.1007/s00464-015-4201-2
13.
KherMSAldardeerAAAbdulRaheemOAAliAMRedwanAA. Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair; Sohag Experience. Egypt J Hosp Med (2021) 85(1):2678–87.
14.
ReynoldsCWMabanzaTCassellARooneyDMMoore‐WilsonYKetiaAet alAssessment of Laparoscopic Surgery Practice, Knowledge, and Training Goals in Liberia: A Mixed‐Methods Study Among Liberian Surgeons. World J Surg (2024) 48(10):2421–32. 10.1002/wjs.12330
15.
AbuzaloutTATaktukSS. Laparoscopic Transabdominal Preperitoneal Hernia Repair. Early Experience of 37 Patients (2016) 1(01):35–44. 10.21502/limuj.005.01.2016
16.
RachidMDSadokTNarjissYBenelkhaiatRB. Surgical Treatment of Inguinal Hernia in North African Patients, Experience of Marrakesh Morocco. Int J Curr Med Pharm Res (2020) 6(1):4931–4. 10.24327/23956429.ijcmpr202001836
17.
AgbakwuruEAOlasehindeOOnyezeCIEtonyeakuACMosanyaAOWuraolaFOet alUse of Commercial Mesh for Hernia Repair in a Low Resource Setting: Experience After 500 Cases. Hernia (2020) 24(3):613–6. 10.1007/s10029-019-01987-9
18.
AbassMOElssayedEOMhammedAB. Laparoscopic Access Techniques: Experience in a Developing Country, Sudan. J Surg (2020) 8(4):109–13. 10.11648/j.js.20200804.12
19.
ShirimaSKituaDMwangaAKivuyoNIssaAKileoIet alComparative Analysis of Surgical Outcomes Between Open Herniotomy and Laparoscopic Hernia Repair Among Pediatric Patients with Inguinal Hernias: A Five-Year Retrospective Review at Tanzania's National Hospital. The East Afr Health Res J (2025) 9(1):144–51. 10.24248/eahrj.v9i1.832
20.
MaghrebiHMakniASebaiAChebbiFRebaiWDaghfousAet alOutcomes of Laparoscopic Surgery for Groin Hernia Repair: Our Experience in Tunisia. The Pan Afr Med J (2018) 29:43. 10.11604/pamj.2018.29.43.14013
21.
FalolaAFFadairoRTDadaOSAdenikinjuJSOgboduEEffiong‐JohnBet alCurrent State of Minimally Invasive General Surgical Practice in Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of the Laparoscopic Procedures Performed and Outcomes. World J Surg (2024) 48(7):1634–50. 10.1002/wjs.12195
22.
NullNPicciochiMAdemuyiwaAOAdisaAAgbekoAECalvacheJAet alGlobal Access to Technologies to Support Safe and Effective Inguinal Hernia Surgery: Prospective, International Cohort Study. Br J Surg (2024) 111(7). 10.1093/bjs/znae164
23.
ReddyKGhardePTayadeHPatilMReddyLSSuryaDet alAdvancements in Robotic Surgery: A Comprehensive Overview of Current Utilizations and Upcoming Frontiers. Cureus (2023) 15(12):e50415. 10.7759/cureus.50415
24.
JebakumarSGSwainSKMunikrishnanVJayapalLKumarRSBaskaranAet alRobotic Hernia Repair with the Novel HUGO Robot System–An Initial Experience from a Tertiary Centre. J Minimal Access Surg (2025) 21(2):195–9. 10.4103/jmas.jmas_193_23
25.
GhazanfarSLeghariAAKazimEFerozRIbrahimF. Short-Term Outcomes of Bilateral Inguinal Hernia Repair Using Open, Laparoscopic and Robotics. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad-Pakistan (2025) 37(1): 97. 10.55519/JAMC-01-13005
26.
FalolaAFDadaOSAdeyeyeAEzebialuCOFadairoRTOkereMOet alAnalyzing the Emergence of Surgical Robotics in Africa: A Scoping Review of Pioneering Procedures, Platforms Utilized, and Outcome Meta-Analysis. J Minim Invasive Surg (2024) 27(3):142–55. 10.7602/jmis.2024.27.3.142
27.
FalolaANdongAAdeyeyeA. Orienting Global Surgery Initiatives Toward Advancing Minimally Invasive Surgery in Africa: A Commentary Based on Continent-Wide Reviews. BMC Surg (2025) 25(1):129. 10.1186/s12893-025-02863-3
28.
De JagerSHowlettJBruwerGMoolmanC. Analysis of the Learning Curve in robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy in a South African Setting. Afr Urol (2021) 1(1):19–24. 10.36303/AUJ.2021.1.1.0002
29.
ForganTLazarusJ. Embracing the Future: The Necessity of Implementing Robotic Surgery in South African Training Institutions. S Afr J Surg (2023) 61(2):1–4. 10.36303/SAJS.4111
30.
First for Africa: Robotic-Assisted Cardiothoracic Surgery Comes to South Africa. Cardiovasc J Afr (2022) 33(6):334. Available online at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10031848/ (Accessed November 17, 2025).
31.
IPCF Founder Leads the Team that Establishes the First-Ever Robotic Surgery Program in Angola, Africa (2025). Available online at: https://www.fightingprostatecancer.org/blog/2024/9/18/ipcf-founder-leads-the-team-that-establishes-the-first-ever-robotic-surgery-program-in-angola-africa (Accessed November 17, 2025).
32.
El anzaouiJMrabtiMElbahriAAlamiMAmeurA. Morocco, A New Era of Robotic Surgery. SIU J (2024) 5(5):371–3. 10.3390/siuj5050056
33.
HerniaSurge Group. International Guidelines for Groin Hernia Management. Hernia (2018) 22:1–165. 10.1007/s10029-017-1668-x
34.
TrevisonnoqMKanevaPWatanabeYFriedGMFeldmanLSLebedevaEet alA Survey of General Surgeons Regarding Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: Practice Patterns, Barriers, and Educational Needs. Hernia (2015) 19:719–24. 10.1007/s10029-014-1287-8
35.
NsadiBDetryOArungW. Inguinal Hernia Surgery in Developing Countries: Should Laparoscopic Repairs Be Performed?Pan Afr Med J (2017) 27:5. 10.11604/pamj.2017.27.5.12358
36.
AkohJA. Competency Assessment in Training in African Countries. J Abdom Wall Surg (2025) 4:14060. 10.3389/jaws.2025.14060
37.
IRCAD Africa. The African Center of Excellence in Minimally Invasive Surgery (2025). Available online at: https://www.ircad.space/ (Accessed November 17, 2025).
38.
KotoZ. Minimal Access Surgery Training in South Africa-changing Philosophy and Enabling the Future. South Afr J Surg (2020) 58(4):174–5. 10.17159/2078-5151/2020/v58n4a3533
39.
Egyptian Society of Laparoscopic Surgery. Scientific program. ESLS Congress (2025). Available online at: https://eslscongress.com/sci-program/eslscongress.com (Accessed November 17, 2025).
40.
South African Society of Endoscopic Surgeons. Conference programme. Somerset West: SASES Congress (2025). Available online at: https://easternsun.eventsair.com/2025-sases-congress/conference-programme (Accessed November 17, 2025).
41.
Société Algérienne de Chirurgie de la Paroi. Programme AHC 2025 (2025). Available online at: https://sacparoi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Programme-AHC2025-1.pdf (Accessed November 17, 2025).
42.
Société Marocaine de Chirurgie. Programme Somachir (2025). Available online at: https://somachir.ma/programme/lastprogrammeSomachir.pdf (Accessed November 17, 2025).
43.
LorenzROppongC. Rwanda Hernia Mission 2024 – Sustainable Improvement in Access to Surgery. Eur Hernia Soc (2025). Available online at: https://europeanherniasociety.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Surgeons-for-Afrika-and-Operation-Hernia-EHS-NL-01-2025-LO-OP.pdf (Accessed November 17, 2025).
44.
GEANCO Foundation. Medical Missions. Wilshire Blvd: GEANCO Foundation (2025). Available online at: https://www.geanco.org/portfolio-items/medical-missions/ (Accessed November 17, 2025).
45.
OehmeFFourieLBeeresFJOgbajiSNussbaumerP. Sustainability in Humanitarian Surgery During Medical Short-Term Trips (Msts): Feasibility of Inguinal Hernia Repair in Rural Nigeria over 6 Years and 13 Missions. Hernia (2018) 22(3):491–8. 10.1007/s10029-018-1758-4
46.
WasikeRAbdallahA. Inguinal Hernia Repair at the Aga Khan Hospital, Nairobi: Practice and Preference Discordance. Ann Afr Surg (2008) 2. 10.4314/aas.v2i1.46244
47.
EngbangJPEssolaBFoudaBBaakaiweLDChichomAMNgoweMN. Inguinal Hernias in Adults: Epidemiological, Clinical and Therapeutic Aspects in the City of Douala. J Surg Res (2021) 4(1):95–118. 10.26502/jsr.10020115
48.
KingsnorthANClarkeMGShillcuttSD. Public Health and Policy Issues of Hernia Surgery in Africa. World J Surg (2009) 33:1188–93. 10.1007/s00268-009-9964-y
49.
MarchegianiFSiragusaLZadoroznyjALaterzaVManganaOSchenaCAet alNew Robotic Platforms in General Surgery: What’s the Current Clinical Scenario?Medicina (2023) 59(7):1264. 10.3390/medicina59071264
50.
LorenzRHubertLPaaschCConzeJOppongCAkohJAet alStructured Hernia Surgery Training Program for General Practitioners in Rwanda-feasibility and Evaluation. Hernia (2025) 29(1):1–7. 10.1007/s10029-025-03260-8
51.
GemechuFATeklehaimanotHKNegussieMAMengistieBTMengistieCTTeferiMGet alBridging the Gap: Feasibility and Future Directions of Robotic Surgery in Sub-saharan Africa—A Narrative Review. J Robot Surg (2025) 19(1):1. 10.1007/s11701-025-02860-x
52.
VierstraeteMSimonsMBorchKde BeauxAEastBReinpoldWet alDescription of the Current Da Vinci® Training Pathway for Robotic Abdominal Wall Surgery by the European Hernia Society. J Abdom Wall Surg (2022) 1:10914. 10.3389/jaws.2022.10914
53.
StefanidisDHuffmanEMCollinsJWMartinoMASatavaRMLevyJS. Expert Consensus Recommendations for Robotic Surgery Credentialing. Ann Surg (2022) 276(1):88–93. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004531
54.
IRCAD. IRCAD Online Courses, c2024. Strasbourg: IRCAD (2025). Available online at: https://www.ircad.fr/e-learning/ircad-live-courses/ (Accessed November 18, 2025).
55.
ShafeeaMSNajmGAl AnsariM. Telesurgery Unleashed: Redefining Surgical Presence in the Age of Intelligent Robotics. J Robotic Surg (2025) 19:455. 10.1007/s11701-025-02634-5
56.
GEANCO. Surgery Mission. Wilshire Blvd: GEANCO Missions (2025). Available online at: https://www.geancomissions.org/surgery (Accessed November 18, 2025).
Appendix 1: Search Strategy
(robotic OR robot-assisted OR robot OR laparoscopy OR laparoscopic OR “transabdominal preperitoneal” OR “totally extraperitoneal” OR TAPP OR TEP) AND (Hernia OR “inguinal hernia” OR “groin hernia”) AND (“surgery” OR “procedure”) AND (Africa OR Algeria OR Angola OR Benin OR Botswana OR “Burkina Faso” OR Burundi OR “Cabo Verde” OR Cameroon OR “Central African Republic” OR Chad OR Comoros OR Congo OR Brazzaville OR Kinshasa OR “Cote d’Ivoire” OR “Ivory Coast” OR Djibouti OR Egypt OR “Equatorial Guinea” OR Eritrea OR Eswatini OR Ethiopia OR Gabon OR Gambia OR Ghana OR Guinea OR Guinea-Bissau OR Kenya OR Lesotho OR Liberia OR Libya OR Madagascar OR Malawi OR Mali OR Mauritania OR Mauritius OR Morocco OR Mozambique OR Namibia OR Niger OR Nigeria OR Rwanda OR “Sao Tome and Principe” OR Senegal OR Seychelles OR “Sierra Leone” OR Somalia OR “South Africa” OR “South Sudan” OR Sudan OR Tanzania OR Togo OR Tunisia OR Uganda OR Zambia OR Zimbabwe).
Summary
Keywords
inguinal hernia, laparoscopy, robotic surgery, Africa, LMICs
Citation
Falola A, Satea M, Guillen PV and Oviedo RJ (2026) Robotic and Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair in Africa: Current Adoption, Challenges, and Future Horizons. J. Abdom. Wall Surg. 5:14775. doi: 10.3389/jaws.2026.14775
Received
17 April 2025
Revised
20 November 2025
Accepted
26 February 2026
Published
19 March 2026
Volume
5 - 2026
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Falola, Satea, Guillen and Oviedo.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Adebayo Falola, falolabayo@gmail.com
ORCID: Adebayo Falola, orcid.org/0000-0001-9509-4844; Murtaja Satea, orcid.org/0009-0002-0413-5861; Pedro Vega Guillen, orcid.org/0000-0001-7514-164X; Rodolfo J. Oviedo, orcid.org/0000-0003-3784-6555
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.