Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Drs Piedimonte and Abenhaim), Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Community Studies (Mr Czuzoj-Shulman and Dr Abenhaim), Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019 Mar-Apr;26(3):551-557. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.08.012. Epub 2018 Sep 5.
To compare the use of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in the United States, with secondary outcomes of perioperative complications, hospital length of stay (LOS), immediate postoperative mortality, cost and a subanalysis compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH).
Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).
Data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), a government-funded database of hospitalization in the United States.
All women with cervical cancer undergoing RH between 2008 and 2015 in the United States and included in the NIS database.
Trends in surgical modality, baseline characteristics, LOS, perioperative outcomes, mortality, and hospital charges were compared between RRH and ARH. Regression models were adjusted for baseline characteristics. Among 41,317 women with cervical cancer, 3563 underwent RH, including 21.0% with a robotic procedure, 6.5% with a laparoscopic procedure, and 72.5% with open surgery. The annual rates of ARH declined significantly over the study period, whereas those of RRH increased. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the RRH and ARH groups. Compared with the ARH group, women undergoing RRH had a lower rate of cumulative postoperative complications (18.16% vs 21.21%; odds ratio [OR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-1.0; p = .05), including lower rates of wound infection (0.27% vs 1.82%; OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.6; p < .01), sepsis (0.27% vs 1.20%; OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.9; p = .03), fever (1.87% vs 4.06%; OR, 0.44, 95% CI, 0.3-0.8; p < .01), and ileus (2.8% vs 9.13%; OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.4; p < .01). The LOS was significantly shorter in the RRH group (median, 2 days vs 4 days; p < .01). The total median hospitalization charge was $47,218 for the RRH group, compared with $38,877 for the ARH group (p < .01).
RRH is being increasingly performed in the United States and is associated with shorter LOS and less postoperative morbidity; however, long-term oncologic outcomes require additional attention.
比较美国机器人根治性子宫切除术(RRH)和经腹根治性子宫切除术(ARH)的应用,并对围手术期并发症、住院时间(LOS)、术后即刻死亡率、成本进行次要结局评估,并与腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术(LRH)进行亚分析。
回顾性队列研究(加拿大任务组分类 II-2)。
美国国家住院患者样本(NIS),这是一个由政府资助的美国住院患者数据库。
所有在美国接受 RH 的宫颈癌患者,时间为 2008 年至 2015 年,纳入 NIS 数据库。
RRH 和 ARH 之间比较手术方式、基线特征、LOS、围手术期结果、死亡率和住院费用的趋势。使用回归模型对基线特征进行调整。在 41317 名宫颈癌患者中,有 3563 名接受了 RH,其中 21.0%采用机器人手术,6.5%采用腹腔镜手术,72.5%采用开放性手术。研究期间,ARH 的年发生率显著下降,而 RRH 的年发生率则上升。RRH 和 ARH 组的基线特征相当。与 ARH 组相比,接受 RRH 的患者术后累积并发症发生率较低(18.16% vs 21.21%;比值比[OR],0.81;95%置信区间[CI],0.6-1.0;p=0.05),包括较低的伤口感染发生率(0.27% vs 1.82%;OR,0.14;95%CI,0.03-0.6;p<0.01)、败血症发生率(0.27% vs 1.20%;OR,0.22;95%CI,0.05-0.9;p=0.03)、发热发生率(1.87% vs 4.06%;OR,0.44,95%CI,0.3-0.8;p<0.01)和肠梗阻发生率(2.8% vs 9.13%;OR,0.28;95%CI,0.12-0.4;p<0.01)。RRH 组 LOS 明显缩短(中位数,2 天 vs 4 天;p<0.01)。RRH 组的总中位住院费用为 47218 美元,而 ARH 组为 38877 美元(p<0.01)。
RRH 在美国的应用越来越广泛,与较短的 LOS 和较少的术后发病率相关;然而,长期的肿瘤学结果需要进一步关注。