• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

机器人辅助腹疝修补术后的结果:对纽约州21565例患者的研究。

Outcomes after Robotic Ventral Hernia Repair: A Study of 21,565 Patients in the State of New York.

作者信息

Altieri Maria S, Yang Jie, Xu Jianjin, Talamini Mark, Pryor Aurora, Telem Dana A

出版信息

Am Surg. 2018 Jun 1;84(6):902-908.

PMID:29981622
Abstract

The purpose of our study is to assess outcomes following robotic ventral hernia (RVH) repair. The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System administrative database was used to identify all patients undergoing laparoscopic ventral hernia (LVH) and RVH between 2010 and 2013. Outcome measures including complications, hospital length of stay (HLOS), 30-day readmissions, and 30-day emergency department (ED) visits were compared. Propensity score (PS) analysis was used to estimate the adjusted marginal differences between patients who underwent robotic-assisted and laparoscopic procedures. There were 20,896 LVH and 679 (3.2%) RVH repairs. Initial univariate analysis demonstrated that patients undergoing RVH had worse outcomes in terms of complications (20.18% vs 10.56%, P < 0.0001), longer HLOS (4.32 vs 2.19 days, P = 0.0023), higher rates in 30-day readmissions (9.28% vs 5.06%, P < 0.0001), and 30-day ED visits (14.43% vs 10.46%, P < 0.0001). Following PS analysis, which accounts for all patient associated variables, there was no difference found in 30-day readmission or 30-day ED visits between RVH and LVH (P = 0.2760 and 0.2043, respectively). Patients undergoing RVH had a significantly shorter HLOS (P < 0.0001) and lower rate of complications (P = 0.0134). Following PS analysis, this study demonstrates that RVH may be associated with shorter HLOS and lower complication rate. Further studies are necessary to compare laparoscopic and robotic approaches for ventral hernia.

摘要

我们研究的目的是评估机器人辅助腹疝(RVH)修补术后的结果。利用纽约州全州规划与研究合作系统管理数据库,识别出2010年至2013年间所有接受腹腔镜腹疝(LVH)和RVH修补术的患者。比较了包括并发症、住院时间(HLOS)、30天再入院率和30天急诊科(ED)就诊次数等结果指标。采用倾向评分(PS)分析来估计接受机器人辅助手术和腹腔镜手术患者之间的调整后边际差异。共有20,896例LVH修补术和679例(3.2%)RVH修补术。初始单因素分析表明,接受RVH修补术的患者在并发症方面结果更差(20.18%对10.56%,P<0.0001),HLOS更长(4.32天对2.19天,P = 0.0023),30天再入院率更高(9.28%对5.06%,P<0.0001),以及30天ED就诊率更高(14.43%对10.46%,P<0.0001)。在进行考虑所有患者相关变量的PS分析后,RVH和LVH之间在30天再入院率或30天ED就诊次数方面未发现差异(分别为P = 0.2760和0.2043)。接受RVH修补术的患者HLOS显著更短(P<0.0001),并发症发生率更低(P = 0.0134)。经过PS分析,本研究表明RVH可能与更短的HLOS和更低的并发症发生率相关。有必要进一步研究比较腹腔镜和机器人辅助治疗腹疝的方法。

相似文献

1
Outcomes after Robotic Ventral Hernia Repair: A Study of 21,565 Patients in the State of New York.机器人辅助腹疝修补术后的结果:对纽约州21565例患者的研究。
Am Surg. 2018 Jun 1;84(6):902-908.
2
Comparative perioperative and 5-year outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic or open inguinal hernia repair: a study of 153,727 patients in the state of New York.纽约州 153727 例患者的机器人与腹腔镜或开放式腹股沟疝修补术的围手术期和 5 年结果比较研究。
Surg Endosc. 2021 Dec;35(12):7209-7218. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-08211-1. Epub 2021 Jan 4.
3
Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: multicenter, blinded randomized controlled trial.机器人与腹腔镜腹外疝修补术的比较:多中心、盲法随机对照试验。
BMJ. 2020 Jul 14;370:m2457. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2457.
4
Robotic vs. Open Approach for Older Adults Undergoing Retromuscular Ventral Hernia Repair.机器人与开放手术治疗老年患者后腹膜前疝修补术的比较。
Ann Surg. 2023 Apr 1;277(4):697-703. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005260. Epub 2021 Oct 22.
5
Nationwide Readmissions Analysis of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Population-Based Study.全国范围内微创与开放腹外疝修补术再入院分析:一项回顾性基于人群的研究。
Am Surg. 2022 Mar;88(3):463-470. doi: 10.1177/00031348211050835. Epub 2021 Nov 24.
6
Robotic Hiatal Hernia Repair Associated with Higher Morbidity and Readmission Rates Compared to Laparoscopic Repair: 10-Year Analysis from the National Readmissions Database (NRD).与腹腔镜修复相比,机器人食管裂孔疝修复术的发病率和再入院率更高:来自国家再入院数据库(NRD)的10年分析。
J Gastrointest Surg. 2023 Mar;27(3):489-497. doi: 10.1007/s11605-022-05548-x. Epub 2022 Dec 12.
7
Robotic approaches may offer benefit in colorectal procedures, more controversial in other areas: a review of 168,248 cases.机器人手术方法在结直肠手术中可能具有优势,在其他领域则更具争议性:对168248例病例的回顾。
Surg Endosc. 2016 Mar;30(3):925-33. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4327-2. Epub 2015 Jul 3.
8
Comparative analysis of open and robotic transversus abdominis release for ventral hernia repair.开放式与机器人经腹横肌平面松解在腹疝修补术中的对比分析。
Surg Endosc. 2018 Feb;32(2):727-734. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5729-0. Epub 2017 Jul 20.
9
Cost analysis of open versus robot-assisted ventral hernia repair - a retrospective cohort study.开放式与机器人辅助腹疝修补术的成本分析-回顾性队列研究。
Hernia. 2024 Oct;28(5):1823-1829. doi: 10.1007/s10029-024-03089-7. Epub 2024 Jun 26.
10
Laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia repair in patients with chronic liver disease.慢性肝病患者腹腔镜与开放腹疝修补术的比较
Surg Endosc. 2017 Feb;31(2):769-777. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5031-6. Epub 2016 Jun 22.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparing robotic to open retromuscular ventral hernia repair: a multi-center propensity-matched analysis.机器人辅助与开放后肌下腹直肌旁疝修补术的比较:一项多中心倾向评分匹配分析。
Surg Endosc. 2025 Jul 10. doi: 10.1007/s00464-025-11922-y.
2
Ventral hernia repair with permanent mesh for non-Hispanic black versus white patients: access and post-operative outcomes in the era of robotic surgery.非西班牙裔黑人和白人患者使用永久性补片进行腹疝修补术:机器人手术时代的手术入路和术后结局
Surg Endosc. 2025 Jan;39(1):560-567. doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-11252-5. Epub 2024 Oct 21.
3
A comparison between robotic-assisted and open approaches for large ventral hernia repair-a multicenter analysis of 30 days outcomes using the ACHQC database.
机器人辅助与开放手术治疗大型腹疝的比较——使用ACHQC数据库对30天结局的多中心分析
Surg Endosc. 2024 Dec;38(12):7538-7543. doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-11249-0. Epub 2024 Sep 16.
4
Robotic surgery for inguinal and ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.机器人手术用于腹股沟疝和腹疝修补术:一项系统评价与荟萃分析。
Surg Endosc. 2024 Jan;38(1):24-46. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10545-5. Epub 2023 Nov 20.
5
Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic incisional hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.机器人辅助与腹腔镜切口疝修补术:一项系统评价与荟萃分析。
Hernia. 2024 Apr;28(2):321-332. doi: 10.1007/s10029-023-02881-1. Epub 2023 Sep 19.
6
Laparoscopic treatment of ventral hernias: the Italian national guidelines.腹腔镜治疗腹疝:意大利国家指南。
Updates Surg. 2023 Aug;75(5):1305-1336. doi: 10.1007/s13304-023-01534-3. Epub 2023 May 22.
7
Patient-reported outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic primary ventral and incisional hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.腹腔镜与机器人原发性腹侧和切口疝修补术的患者报告结局:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Hernia. 2023 Apr;27(2):245-257. doi: 10.1007/s10029-022-02733-4. Epub 2023 Jan 6.
8
Socioeconomic disparities in the utilization of primary robotic hernia repair.初级机器人疝修补术利用中的社会经济差异。
Surg Endosc. 2023 Jun;37(6):4829-4833. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09627-7. Epub 2022 Sep 22.
9
Clinical outcomes and cost of robotic ventral hernia repair: systematic review.机器人腹侧疝修补术的临床结果和成本:系统评价。
BJS Open. 2021 Nov 9;5(6). doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrab098.
10
Minimally invasive gastrointestinal surgery: From past to the future.微创胃肠手术:从过去到未来。
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021 Oct 8;71:102922. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102922. eCollection 2021 Nov.