Suppr超能文献

标准腹腔镜与机器人辅助肌后腹直肌旁疝修补术

Standard laparoscopic versus robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair.

作者信息

Warren Jeremy A, Cobb William S, Ewing Joseph A, Carbonell Alfredo M

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville, Greenville Health System, 701 Grove Rd, ST 3, Greenville, SC, 29605, USA.

Department of Quality Management, Greenville Health System, Greenville, SC, USA.

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2017 Jan;31(1):324-332. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-4975-x. Epub 2016 Jun 10.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) demonstrates comparable recurrence rates, but lower incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) than open repair. Delayed complications can occur with intraperitoneal mesh, particularly if a subsequent abdominal operation is required, potentially resulting in bowel injury. Robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair (RRVHR) allows abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) and extraperitoneal mesh placement previously only possible with open repair, with the wound morbidity of LVHR.

METHODS

All LVHR and RRVHR performed in our institution between June 2013 and May 2015 contained in the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative database were analyzed. Continuous bivariate analysis was performed with Student's t test. Continuous nonparametric data were compared with Chi-squared test, or Fisher's exact for small sample sizes. p values <0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

We compared 103 LVHR with 53 RRVHR. LVHR patients were older (60.2 vs. 52.9 years; p = 0.001), but demographics were otherwise similar between groups. Hernia width was similar (6.9 vs. 6.5 cm, p = 0.508). Fascial closure was achieved more often with RRVHR (96.2 vs. 50.5 %; p < 0.001) and aided by myofascial release in 43.4 %. Mesh was placed in an intraperitoneal position in 90.3 % of LVHR and extraperitoneal in 96.2 % of RRVHR. RRVHR operative time was longer (245 vs. 122 min, p < 0.001). Narcotic requirement was similar between LVHR and RRVHR (1.8 vs. 1.4 morphine equivalents/h; p = 0.176). Seroma was more common after RRVHR (47.2 vs. 16.5 %, p < 0.001), but SSI was similar (3.8 vs. 1 %, p = 0.592). Median length of stay was shorter after RRVHR (1 vs. 2 days, p = 0.004). Direct hospital cost was similar (LVHR $13,943 vs. RRVHR $19,532; p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

RRVHR enables true AWR, with myofascial release to offset tension for midline fascial closure, and obviates the need for intraperitoneal mesh. Perioperative morbidity of RRVHR is comparable to LVHR, with shorter length of stay despite a longer operative time and extensive tissue dissection.

摘要

背景

腹腔镜腹疝修补术(LVHR)显示出与开放修补术相当的复发率,但手术部位感染(SSI)的发生率低于开放修补术。腹膜内补片可能会出现延迟并发症,特别是在需要进行后续腹部手术时,这可能会导致肠损伤。机器人肌后腹疝修补术(RRVHR)可以进行腹壁重建(AWR)和腹膜外补片放置,而这在以前只有开放修补术才能做到,同时具有LVHR的伤口发病率。

方法

分析2013年6月至2015年5月间在我们机构进行的所有LVHR和RRVHR,这些数据包含在美洲疝学会质量协作数据库中。采用学生t检验进行连续双变量分析。连续非参数数据采用卡方检验进行比较,小样本量则采用Fisher精确检验。p值<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。

结果

我们比较了103例LVHR和53例RRVHR。LVHR患者年龄较大(60.2岁对52.9岁;p = 0.001),但两组间的人口统计学特征在其他方面相似。疝宽度相似(6.9 cm对6.5 cm,p = 0.508)。RRVHR更常实现筋膜闭合(96.2%对50.5%;p < 0.001),43.4%的患者借助肌筋膜松解辅助。90.3%的LVHR将补片放置在腹膜内位置,96.2%的RRVHR将补片放置在腹膜外。RRVHR手术时间更长(245分钟对122分钟,p < 0.001)。LVHR和RRVHR之间的麻醉药物需求量相似(1.8对1.4吗啡当量/小时;p = 0.176)。RRVHR后血清肿更常见(47.2%对16.5%,p < 0.001),但SSI相似(3.8%对1%,p = 0.592)。RRVHR后的中位住院时间更短(1天对2天,p = 0.004)。直接住院费用相似(LVHR为13,943美元对RRVHR为19,532美元;p = 0.07)。

结论

RRVHR能够实现真正的AWR,通过肌筋膜松解来抵消中线筋膜闭合的张力,并且无需腹膜内补片。RRVHR的围手术期发病率与LVHR相当,尽管手术时间更长且组织解剖范围更广,但住院时间更短。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验