Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern, Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; Department of Surgery, VA North Texas Health Care System, Dallas, Texas.
Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern, Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
J Surg Res. 2019 Sep;241:119-127. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.03.046. Epub 2019 Apr 22.
The robotic approach to an inguinal hernia has not been compared head to head with the open and laparoscopic techniques in randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, long-term outcomes for robotic inguinal hernia repair (RHR) are lacking. In this study, we compared laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LHR) and RHR with open inguinal hernia repair (OHR) in veteran patients performed by surgeons most familiar with each approach.
A retrospective single-institution analysis of 1299 inguinal hernia repairs performed at the VA North Texas Health Care System between 2005 and 2017 was undertaken. Three surgeons performed the operations, each an expert in one approach, and there was no crossover in techniques. A total of 1100 OHRs, 128 LHRs, and 71 RHRs were performed. Univariable analysis was undertaken to determine associations between techniques and outcomes (OHR versus LHR; OHR versus RHR; LHR versus RHR). Setting complications as a dependent variable, multivariable analyses were undertaken to determine an association with complications as well as independent predictors of complications.
Patient demographics were similar among groups except for age that was higher in the OHR cohort. The average follow-up was 5.2 ± 3.4 y. In the present report, recurrence was associated with a higher rate in the RHR versus OHR (5.6% versus 1.7%; P < 0.02), but not in the LHR versus OHR (3.9% versus 1.9%; P = 0.09). Inguinodynia was more likely to occur in both the LHR and RHR compared with the OHR (9.4% and 14.1 versus 1.5%; both P's < 0.001). Urinary retention was also more common in the LHR and RHR than in the OHR (5.5% and 5.6% versus 1.8%, both P's < 0.05) as was the rate of overall complications (34.4% and 38.0% versus 11.2%, both P's < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis showed femoral hernias, ASA, serum albumin, operative room time, a recurrent hernia, and the minimally invasive approaches were independent predictors of overall complications.
Outcomes in the OHR cohort were, in general, superior compared with both the LHR and RHR. However, these strategies should be viewed as complementary. The best approach to an inguinal hernia repair rests on the specific expertise of the surgeon.
机器人腹股沟疝手术尚未在随机对照试验中与开放式和腹腔镜技术进行头对头比较。此外,机器人腹股沟疝修补术(RHR)的长期结果尚不清楚。在这项研究中,我们比较了退伍军人患者中由最熟悉每种方法的外科医生进行的腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术(LHR)和 RHR 与开放式腹股沟疝修补术(OHR)。
对 2005 年至 2017 年在 VA 北德克萨斯医疗保健系统进行的 1299 例腹股沟疝修补术进行了回顾性单机构分析。三名外科医生进行了手术,每位外科医生都精通一种方法,并且技术上没有交叉。共进行了 1100 例 OHR、128 例 LHR 和 71 例 RHR。进行单变量分析以确定技术与结局之间的关联(OHR 与 LHR;OHR 与 RHR;LHR 与 RHR)。将并发症作为因变量,进行多变量分析以确定与并发症的关联以及并发症的独立预测因素。
除了 OHR 队列的年龄较高外,各组患者的人口统计学特征相似。平均随访时间为 5.2±3.4 年。在本报告中,RHR 与 OHR 相比,复发率更高(5.6%对 1.7%;P<0.02),但 LHR 与 OHR 相比,复发率无差异(3.9%对 1.9%;P=0.09)。与 OHR 相比,LHR 和 RHR 更有可能发生腹股沟痛(9.4%和 14.1 对 1.5%;均 P<0.001)。与 OHR 相比,LHR 和 RHR 中尿潴留也更为常见(5.5%和 5.6%对 1.8%;均 P<0.05),总并发症发生率也更高(34.4%和 38.0%对 11.2%;均 P<0.001)。多变量回归分析显示,股疝、ASA、血清白蛋白、手术室时间、复发性疝和微创手术是总并发症的独立预测因素。
OHR 队列的结果总体上优于 LHR 和 RHR。然而,这些策略应被视为互补的。最佳的腹股沟疝修补术方法取决于外科医生的具体专业知识。