Section of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8109, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
Surg Endosc. 2021 Jun;35(6):3085-3089. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07700-7. Epub 2020 Jun 15.
The robotic surgical approach offers enhanced visualization, dexterity and reach, which may facilitate the more technically demanding portions of paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair such as hiatal reconstruction and mediastinal dissection. We sought to compare the peri-operative clinical outcomes of the laparoscopic vs. robotic approach to PEH repair.
A prospective, IRB-approved database was maintained for all robotic PEH repairs performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary academic hospital from 2009 to 2019. A retrospective review of laparoscopic PEH over this same time period was used as a comparison group. Outcome measures included: operative time, conversion to open, need for an esophageal lengthening procedure, operative equipment costs and length of stay (LOS).
1854 patients underwent PEH repair during this time period (830 robotic; 1024 laparoscopic). Demographics of both groups were similar, including BMI and PEH type, although a higher proportion of robotic cases were re-operative PEH repairs (32.5% vs 24.0%; p < 0.001). Patients who underwent a robotic PEH had a significant reduction in esophageal lengthening procedures performed (0.1% vs. 11.0%; p < 0.001), conversion to open (0% vs. 7.0%; p < 0.001), and LOS (1.8 days vs. 3.1 days; p < 0.001). Intra-operative equipment costs were similar.
In one of the largest robotic PEH case series reported to date, there were significant improvements in peri-operative outcomes in patients undergoing a robotic-assisted approach. Although a greater number of patients in the robotic group were redo PEH repairs, when compared to the laparoscopic group, there were no conversions to open and significantly fewer esophageal lengthening procedures, both of which carry significant morbidity. The similar intra-operative costs were likely balanced by the higher costs associated with stapling equipment and conversions in the laparoscopic group. Our findings show that the robotic PEH repair is safe and can result in improved peri-operative outcomes.
机器人手术方法提供了增强的可视化、灵活性和可及性,这可能有助于食管裂孔疝 (PEH) 修复中更具技术挑战性的部分,例如食管裂孔重建和纵隔解剖。我们旨在比较腹腔镜与机器人方法治疗 PEH 的围手术期临床结果。
对 2009 年至 2019 年期间在一家三级学术医院由一位外科医生进行的所有机器人 PEH 修复手术进行了前瞻性、IRB 批准的数据库维护。同时回顾了同一时期的腹腔镜 PEH 作为对照组。结果测量包括:手术时间、转为开放手术、需要食管延长术、手术设备成本和住院时间(LOS)。
在此期间,1854 例患者接受了 PEH 修复(830 例机器人;1024 例腹腔镜)。两组的人口统计学特征相似,包括 BMI 和 PEH 类型,但机器人组中更多的是再次手术的 PEH 修复(32.5% vs 24.0%;p<0.001)。接受机器人 PEH 的患者食管延长术的比例显著降低(0.1% vs 11.0%;p<0.001),开放手术的转化率(0% vs 7.0%;p<0.001)和 LOS(1.8 天 vs 3.1 天;p<0.001)。术中设备成本相似。
在迄今为止报道的最大的机器人 PEH 病例系列之一中,接受机器人辅助治疗的患者在围手术期结果方面有显著改善。尽管机器人组中有更多的患者是再次手术的 PEH 修复,但与腹腔镜组相比,没有转为开放手术,食管延长术的比例显著降低,这两者都有显著的发病率。腹腔镜组中与钉合设备相关的较高成本和转为开放手术的可能性导致了较高的术中成本,可能平衡了机器人组中较高的设备成本。我们的发现表明,机器人 PEH 修复是安全的,并可以改善围手术期结果。