Suppr超能文献

腹腔镜与机器人胃旁路术围手术期安全性:早期经验的倾向匹配分析。

Perioperative safety of laparoscopic versus robotic gastric bypass: a propensity matched analysis of early experience.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina.

Department of Surgery, Health Sciences Center Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, New York.

出版信息

Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017 Nov;13(11):1847-1852. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2017.07.016. Epub 2017 Jul 18.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The role of robotic assistance for gastric bypass remains controversial. Using a large nationwide cohort, we compared early outcomes after robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (Robot-RYGB) with the laparoscopic technique (LRYGB).

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to use a bariatric-specific, large, nationwide cohort with several years of data to compare the early postoperative outcomes of the Robot-RYGB and LRYGB.

SETTING

Nationwide register-based cohort study.

METHODS

The Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database from 2007 to 2012 was used to identify patients who underwent nonrevisional Robot-RYGB or LRYGB. Propensity matching was used to account for differences in age, body mass index, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, multiple preoperative co-morbidities, and procedural year. A second propensity score was calculated with adjustment of operative time in addition to the other adjusted variables.

RESULTS

We identified 137,455 patients who underwent Robot-RYGB (n = 2415) or LRYGB (n = 135,040) with a mean body mass index of 47.1 ± 8.4 kg/m and age of 45.4 ± 11.7 years. In the propensity-matched cohorts, there were 30-day differences in operative time (150.2 ± 72.5 versus 111.8 ± 47.6, P<.001); 30-day rates of reoperation (4.8% versus 3.1%, P = .002); 90-day rates of reoperation (8.8% versus 5.3%, P<.001), complication (15.8% versus 12.5%, P = .001), readmission (8.5% versus 6.4%, P = .005), stricture (3.5% versus 2.0%, P = .001), ulceration (1.2% versus .6%, P = .034), nausea or emesis (6.4% versus 4.36%, P = .001), and anastomotic leak (1.6% versus .2%, P<.001) when comparing Robot-RYGB with LRYGB. After including operative time in propensity matching, there were no significant differences in rates of 30-day readmission or ulceration or 90-day readmission or ulceration; all other differences remained significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite controlling for patient characteristics, patients undergoing Robot-RYGB developed higher rates of early morbidity compared with LRYGB, suggesting LRYGB may provide improved postoperative outcomes. Further studies are needed to definitively compare these 2 operative approaches.

摘要

背景

机器人辅助胃旁路术的作用仍存在争议。本研究使用大型全国队列,比较了机器人 Roux-en-Y 胃旁路术(Robot-RYGB)与腹腔镜技术(LRYGB)的早期结果。

目的

本研究旨在使用专门的大型全国队列,结合多年的数据,比较 Robot-RYGB 和 LRYGB 的早期术后结果。

设置

全国基于登记的队列研究。

方法

使用 2007 年至 2012 年的减重手术结果纵向数据库,确定接受非修正机器人 Roux-en-Y 胃旁路术(Robot-RYGB)或腹腔镜 Roux-en-Y 胃旁路术(LRYGB)的患者。使用倾向评分匹配来解释年龄、体重指数、性别、美国麻醉医师协会分类、多种术前合并症和手术年份的差异。此外,我们还计算了第二个倾向评分,将手术时间调整到其他调整变量中。

结果

我们确定了 137455 例接受 Robot-RYGB(n=2415)或 LRYGB(n=135040)的患者,平均体重指数为 47.1±8.4kg/m2,年龄为 45.4±11.7 岁。在倾向匹配的队列中,手术时间存在 30 天差异(150.2±72.5 比 111.8±47.6,P<.001);30 天再手术率(4.8%比 3.1%,P=0.002);90 天再手术率(8.8%比 5.3%,P<.001),并发症(15.8%比 12.5%,P=0.001),再入院率(8.5%比 6.4%,P=0.005),狭窄(3.5%比 2.0%,P=0.001),溃疡(1.2%比 0.6%,P=0.034),恶心或呕吐(6.4%比 4.36%,P=0.001),吻合口漏(1.6%比 0.2%,P<.001)。当比较 Robot-RYGB 与 LRYGB 时,将手术时间纳入倾向匹配后,30 天再入院或溃疡率,90 天再入院或溃疡率没有显著差异;所有其他差异仍然显著。

结论

尽管控制了患者特征,但接受 Robot-RYGB 的患者与 LRYGB 相比,早期发病率更高,这表明 LRYGB 可能提供了更好的术后结果。需要进一步的研究来明确比较这两种手术方法。

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