• 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

原发性单纯性中线腹疝机器人补片修补技术的比较及术后并发症相关危险因素分析。

A comparison of robotic mesh repair techniques for primary uncomplicated midline ventral hernias and analysis of risk factors associated with postoperative complications.

作者信息

Kudsi O Y, Chang K, Bou-Ayash N, Gokcal F

机构信息

Good Samaritan Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, One Pearl Street, Brockton, MA, 02301, USA.

出版信息

Hernia. 2021 Feb;25(1):51-59. doi: 10.1007/s10029-020-02199-2. Epub 2020 May 5.

DOI:10.1007/s10029-020-02199-2
PMID:32372155
Abstract

PURPOSE

We aim to compare short-term outcomes of robotic intraperitoneal onlay (rIPOM), transabdominal preperitoneal (rTAPP) and retromuscular (rRM) repair for uncomplicated midline primary ventral hernias (PVH) and determine risk factors associated with postoperative complications.

METHODS

The three groups were compared in terms of pre-, intra-, and post-operative variables. Postoperative complications were assessed using previously validated classifications. Univariate analyses were conducted to determine which variables influence postoperative complications (up to 90 days), followed by a multivariate regression analysis revealing statistically important risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 269 patients who underwent robotic PVH repair patients were grouped as rIPOM (n = 90), rTAPP (n = 108), and rRM (n = 71). rRM repair allowed for the use of larger-sized meshes for larger defects; however, it was associated with higher-grade complications. rTAPP repair resulted in the lowest morbidity and offered the highest mesh-to-defect ratio for smaller-sized hernias. Operative time for the rRM group was longer. The rIPOM group had a higher morbidity, likely due to higher frequency of minor complications, as compared to rTAPP and rRM groups. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that coronary artery disease, absence of defect closure, intraperitoneally placed mesh, and skin-to-skin time (minutes) were significantly associated with postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Robotic PVHR contributes multiple techniques to a surgeon's armamentarium, such as IPOM, TAPP, and RM mesh placements. Patient characteristics as well as the potential consequences of each technique need to be taken into consideration when deciding the appropriate approach for the repair of primary uncomplicated midline ventral hernias.

摘要

目的

我们旨在比较机器人经腹腔补片植入术(rIPOM)、经腹腹膜前修补术(rTAPP)和肌后修补术(rRM)治疗单纯性中线原发性腹疝(PVH)的短期疗效,并确定与术后并发症相关的危险因素。

方法

比较三组患者术前、术中和术后的变量。使用先前验证的分类方法评估术后并发症。进行单因素分析以确定哪些变量会影响术后并发症(长达90天),随后进行多因素回归分析以揭示具有统计学意义的危险因素。

结果

共有269例行机器人PVH修补术的患者被分为rIPOM组(n = 90)、rTAPP组(n = 108)和rRM组(n = 71)。rRM修补术允许使用更大尺寸的补片来修复更大的缺损;然而,它与更高级别的并发症相关。rTAPP修补术导致的发病率最低,并且对于较小尺寸的疝提供了最高的补片与缺损比例。rRM组的手术时间更长。与rTAPP组和rRM组相比,rIPOM组的发病率更高,可能是由于轻微并发症的发生率更高。多因素回归分析显示,冠状动脉疾病、未闭合缺损、补片置于腹腔内以及皮肤对皮肤时间(分钟)与术后并发症显著相关。

结论

机器人PVHR为外科医生的手术方法库增添了多种技术,如IPOM、TAPP和RM补片放置。在决定修复原发性单纯性中线腹疝的合适方法时,需要考虑患者特征以及每种技术的潜在后果。

相似文献

1
A comparison of robotic mesh repair techniques for primary uncomplicated midline ventral hernias and analysis of risk factors associated with postoperative complications.原发性单纯性中线腹疝机器人补片修补技术的比较及术后并发症相关危险因素分析。
Hernia. 2021 Feb;25(1):51-59. doi: 10.1007/s10029-020-02199-2. Epub 2020 May 5.
2
Robotic intraperitoneal onlay versus totally extraperitoneal (TEP) retromuscular mesh ventral hernia repair: A propensity score matching analysis of short-term outcomes.机器人腹腔内置片修补术与完全腹膜外(TEP)肌后补片腹疝修补术:短期疗效的倾向评分匹配分析
Am J Surg. 2020 Oct;220(4):837-844. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.01.003. Epub 2020 Jan 8.
3
Robotic TAPP Ventral Hernia Repair: Early Lessons Learned at an Inner City Safety Net Hospital.机器人经腹腹膜前修补术治疗腹疝:一家市中心安全网医院的早期经验教训
JSLS. 2018 Jan-Mar;22(1). doi: 10.4293/JSLS.2017.00070.
4
Short-term comparison between preperitoneal and intraperitoneal onlay mesh placement in robotic ventral hernia repair.机器人腹疝修补术中腹膜前和腹腔内补片放置的短期比较。
Hernia. 2019 Oct;23(5):957-967. doi: 10.1007/s10029-019-01946-4. Epub 2019 Apr 9.
5
[Current robotic ventral hernia surgery exemplified by 50 consecutive patients].[以连续50例患者为例的当前机器人腹疝手术]
Chirurg. 2022 Jan;93(1):82-88. doi: 10.1007/s00104-021-01407-8. Epub 2021 Apr 19.
6
A novel approach for the treatment of Morgagni hernias: robotic transabdominal preperitoneal diaphragmatic hernia repair.一种治疗 Morgagni 疝的新方法:机器人经腹腹膜前膈疝修补术。
Hernia. 2022 Feb;26(1):355-361. doi: 10.1007/s10029-021-02472-y. Epub 2021 Sep 7.
7
Feasibility of Robotic-Assisted Transabdominal Preperitoneal Ventral Hernia Repair.机器人辅助经腹腹膜前腹疝修补术的可行性
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2018 Apr;28(4):434-438. doi: 10.1089/lap.2017.0595. Epub 2018 Jan 2.
8
Transabdominal (TA) versus totally extraperitoneal (TEP) robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair: a propensity score matching analysis.经腹(TA)与完全腹膜外(TEP)机器人后肌膜腹侧疝修补术:倾向评分匹配分析。
Surg Endosc. 2020 Aug;34(8):3550-3559. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07574-9. Epub 2020 Jun 4.
9
Robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair and transversus abdominis release: short-term outcomes and risk factors associated with perioperative complications.机器人辅助肌后腹侧疝修补术及腹横肌松解术:围手术期并发症的短期结局及相关危险因素
Hernia. 2019 Apr;23(2):375-385. doi: 10.1007/s10029-019-01911-1. Epub 2019 Feb 15.
10
Robotic eTEP versus IPOM evaluation: the REVEAL multicenter randomized clinical trial.机器人经肛内镜前列腺切除术与经肛微创前列腺切除术评估:REVEAL 多中心随机临床试验。
Surg Endosc. 2023 Mar;37(3):2143-2153. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09722-9. Epub 2022 Nov 2.

引用本文的文献

1
"Comparative safety and efficacy of robotic TAPP and IPOM techniques in ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Short-term Outcomes".机器人经腹腹膜前修补术(TAPP)和腹腔内网片修补术(IPOM)在腹疝修补中的安全性和疗效比较:短期结果的系统评价和荟萃分析
Hernia. 2025 Aug 19;29(1):255. doi: 10.1007/s10029-025-03454-0.
2
Concomitant Panniculectomy in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: A Narrative Review Focusing on Obese Patients.腹壁重建术中同期行腹壁脂肪切除术:以肥胖患者为重点的叙述性综述
Clin Pract. 2024 Apr 22;14(2):653-660. doi: 10.3390/clinpract14020052.
3
Robotic-assisted repair of incisional hernia-early experiences of a university robotic hernia program and comparison with open and minimally invasive sublay technique (eMILOS).

本文引用的文献

1
Robotic intraperitoneal onlay versus totally extraperitoneal (TEP) retromuscular mesh ventral hernia repair: A propensity score matching analysis of short-term outcomes.机器人腹腔内置片修补术与完全腹膜外(TEP)肌后补片腹疝修补术:短期疗效的倾向评分匹配分析
Am J Surg. 2020 Oct;220(4):837-844. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.01.003. Epub 2020 Jan 8.
2
Primary ventral hernia: where are we at?原发性腹疝:我们目前的情况如何?
Hernia. 2019 Oct;23(5):829. doi: 10.1007/s10029-019-02058-9.
3
Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)): Part B.
机器人辅助切口疝修补术-大学机器人疝项目的早期经验及与开放和微创经腹腔入路腹膜前修补术(eMILOS)的比较。
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2023 Oct 12;408(1):396. doi: 10.1007/s00423-023-03129-3.
4
Can ventral TAPP achieve favorable outcomes in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair? A systematic review and meta-analysis.经腹腹膜前补片修补术(TAPP)能否实现微创腹壁疝修补的良好效果?系统评价和荟萃分析。
Hernia. 2023 Aug;27(4):729-739. doi: 10.1007/s10029-022-02709-4. Epub 2022 Nov 15.
5
Robotic transabdominal retromuscular rectus diastasis (r-TARRD) repair: a new approach.机器人经腹肌后直肌分离修复术(r-TARRD):一种新方法。
Hernia. 2022 Dec;26(6):1501-1509. doi: 10.1007/s10029-021-02547-w. Epub 2022 Jan 4.
6
Intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.经腹与经腹膜外补片在微创腹外疝修补术中的应用:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Hernia. 2022 Apr;26(2):533-541. doi: 10.1007/s10029-021-02530-5. Epub 2021 Nov 20.
腹腔镜治疗腹侧和切口腹壁疝指南更新(国际腹内疝学会 (IEHS)):B 部分。
Surg Endosc. 2019 Nov;33(11):3511-3549. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-06908-6. Epub 2019 Jul 10.
4
Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))-Part A.腹腔镜治疗腹前壁和切口疝指南更新(国际腹内疝学会(IEHS))-A 部分。
Surg Endosc. 2019 Oct;33(10):3069-3139. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-06907-7. Epub 2019 Jun 27.
5
Short-term comparison between preperitoneal and intraperitoneal onlay mesh placement in robotic ventral hernia repair.机器人腹疝修补术中腹膜前和腹腔内补片放置的短期比较。
Hernia. 2019 Oct;23(5):957-967. doi: 10.1007/s10029-019-01946-4. Epub 2019 Apr 9.
6
Current perspectives in robotic hernia repair.机器人疝气修补术的当前观点
Robot Surg. 2017 May 5;4:57-67. doi: 10.2147/RSRR.S101809. eCollection 2017.
7
Multicenter review of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: is there a role for robotics?机器人与腹腔镜腹疝修补术的多中心回顾:机器人技术是否有作用?
Surg Endosc. 2018 Apr;32(4):1901-1905. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5882-5. Epub 2018 Feb 6.
8
Nomenclature in Abdominal Wall Hernias: Is It Time for Consensus?腹壁疝的命名:是时候达成共识了吗?
World J Surg. 2017 Oct;41(10):2488-2491. doi: 10.1007/s00268-017-4037-0.
9
Assessment of predictive factors for recurrence in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair using a bridging technique.评估使用桥接技术的腹腔镜腹疝修补术后复发的预测因素。
Surg Endosc. 2017 Sep;31(9):3656-3663. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5401-0. Epub 2017 Jan 11.
10
Ventral Hernia Management: Expert Consensus Guided by Systematic Review.腹疝管理:基于系统评价的专家共识
Ann Surg. 2017 Jan;265(1):80-89. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001701.