Suppr超能文献

机器人辅助门诊腹股沟疝修补术。

Robotic Approach to Outpatient Inguinal Hernia Repair.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL; OnetoMap Analytics, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.

Department of Surgery, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL.

出版信息

J Am Coll Surg. 2020 Jul;231(1):61-72. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.04.031. Epub 2020 May 4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Robotics offers improved ergonomics, visualization, instrument articulation, and tremor filtration. Disadvantages include startup cost and system breakdown. Surgeon education notwithstanding, we hypothesize that robotic inguinal hernia repair carries minimal advantages over the laparoscopic or open approach.

METHODS

The 2009-2015 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-State Ambulatory Surgery and Services and American Hospital Association Annual Health data sets from Florida were queried for open, laparoscopic, and robotic inguinal hernia repairs. Hospital and patient demographic, financial, and comorbidity data (26 total variables) were evaluated. Data are presented as mean ± SEM; p < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

We identified 103,183 cases (63,375 open, 38,886 laparoscopic, and 922 robotic). Patient characteristics were the following: male, white, aged 51 to 70 years, nongovernmental and not-for-profit hospitals, grouped Charlson Comorbidity Category = 0, private insurance coverage, median income quartile 3 (4 = highest), and routine discharge disposition (all, p < 0.05). Total charges were: $18,261 ± $38 (open), $25,223 ± $60 (laparoscopic), and $45,830 ± $1,023 (robot) (p < 0.0001 robot vs open, robot vs laparoscopic, and laparoscopic vs open). Top factors associated with open procedures (area under the curve 0.785): hospital is investor owned for profit, self-pay, black, Latino, and Medicaid; with laparoscopic procedures (area under the curve 0.771): private insurance, median income quartile 4 (highest), median income quartile 3, median income quartile 2, and nongovernmental, not-for-profit hospitals; and with robotic procedures (area under the curve 0.936): Charlson Comorbidity Category = 2, Charlson Comorbidity Category = 1, median income quartile 3, median income quartile 2, and age.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery has increased charges and is performed in sicker, higher-income patients. The open approach is more apt to be performed in black/Hispanic, self-pay patients, and for-profit hospitals. The role for robotic inguinal hernia repair is undefined.

摘要

背景

机器人技术具有改善的人体工程学、可视化、器械可操作性和震颤过滤功能。缺点包括启动成本和系统故障。尽管进行了外科医生教育,但我们假设机器人腹股沟疝修补术相对于腹腔镜或开放式手术方法没有明显优势。

方法

从佛罗里达州的 2009 年至 2015 年医疗保健成本和利用项目-州门诊手术和服务以及美国医院协会年度健康数据集查询了开放式、腹腔镜和机器人腹股沟疝修补术。评估了医院和患者的人口统计学、财务和合并症数据(共 26 个变量)。数据以平均值±SEM 表示;p < 0.05 被认为具有统计学意义。

结果

我们确定了 103183 例(63375 例开放式、38886 例腹腔镜式和 922 例机器人式)。患者特征如下:男性、白人、年龄 51 至 70 岁、非政府非营利性医院、Charlson 合并症类别分组为 0、私人保险覆盖、收入四分位数 3(最高四分位数为 4)和常规出院处置(所有 p < 0.05)。总费用为:$18261 ± $38(开放式)、$25223 ± $60(腹腔镜式)和$45830 ± $1023(机器人式)(p < 0.0001 机器人式与开放式、机器人式与腹腔镜式和腹腔镜式与开放式相比)。与开放式手术相关的主要因素(曲线下面积 0.785):医院为营利性的机构所有、自付、黑人、拉丁裔和医疗补助;与腹腔镜手术相关的因素(曲线下面积 0.771):私人保险、收入四分位数 4(最高)、收入四分位数 3、收入四分位数 2 和非政府非营利性医院;与机器人手术相关的因素(曲线下面积 0.936):Charlson 合并症类别= 2、Charlson 合并症类别= 1、收入四分位数 3、收入四分位数 2 和年龄。

结论

机器人手术增加了费用,并且用于治疗病情更严重、收入更高的患者。开放式手术更有可能用于黑人/西班牙裔、自付和营利性医院的患者。机器人腹股沟疝修补术的作用尚未确定。

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