Cleveland Clinic Center for Abdominal Core Health, Digestive Diseases and Surgery Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Lerner Research Institute, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
JAMA Surg. 2021 Jan 1;156(1):22-29. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.4569.
Despite rapid adoption of the robotic platform for ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh in the United States, there is no level I evidence comparing it with the traditional laparoscopic approach. This randomized clinical trial sought to demonstrate a clinical benefit to the robotic approach.
To determine whether robotic approach to ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh would result in less postoperative pain.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A registry-based, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical trial at the Cleveland Clinic Center for Abdominal Core Health, Cleveland, Ohio, completed between September 2017 and January 2020, with a minimum follow-up duration of 30 days. Two surgeons at 1 academic tertiary care hospital. Patients with primary or incisional midline ventral hernias of an anticipated width of 7 cm or less presenting in the elective setting and able to tolerate a minimally invasive repair.
Patients were randomized to a standardized laparoscopic or robotic ventral hernia repair with fascial closure and intraperitoneal mesh.
The trial was powered to detect a 30% difference in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11) on the first postoperative day. Secondary end points included the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Intensity short form (3a), hernia-specific quality of life, operative time, wound morbidity, recurrence, length of stay, and cost.
Seventy-five patients completed their minimally invasive hernia repair: 36 laparoscopic and 39 robotic. Baseline demographics and hernia characteristics were comparable. Robotic operations had a longer median operative time (146 vs 94 minutes; P < .001). There were 2 visceral injuries in each cohort but no full-thickness enterotomies or unplanned reoperations. There were no significant differences in NRS-11 scores preoperatively or on postoperative days 0, 1, 7, or 30. Specifically, median NRS-11 scores on the first postoperative day were the same (5 vs 5; P = .61). Likewise, postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 3a and hernia-specific quality-of-life scores, as well as length of stay and complication rates, were similar. The robotic platform adds cost (total cost ratio, 1.13 vs 0.97; P = .03), driven by the cost of additional operating room time (1.25 vs 0.85; P < .001).
Laparoscopic and robotic ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh have comparable outcomes. The increased operative time and proportional cost of the robotic approach are not offset by a measurable clinical benefit.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03283982.
尽管美国迅速采用机器人平台进行腹腔内网片的腹疝修补术,但仍缺乏将其与传统腹腔镜方法进行比较的 I 级证据。本随机临床试验旨在证明机器人方法在腹疝修补术中具有临床优势。
确定机器人方法进行腹腔内网片腹疝修补术是否会导致术后疼痛减轻。
设计、设置和参与者:这是一项在克利夫兰诊所腹部核心健康中心进行的基于注册、单盲、前瞻性随机临床试验,于 2017 年 9 月至 2020 年 1 月进行,随访时间至少为 30 天。该研究由克利夫兰的一家学术性三级护理医院的两位外科医生进行。患者为原发性或切口中线腹疝,预计宽度不超过 7cm,且可耐受微创手术修复。
患者被随机分为标准化腹腔镜或机器人腹疝修补术,行筋膜闭合和腹腔内网片。
该试验旨在检测出术后第 1 天数字评分量表(NRS-11)的 30%差异。次要终点包括患者报告的结局测量信息系统疼痛强度简表(3a)、疝特异性生活质量、手术时间、伤口发病率、复发率、住院时间和成本。
75 例患者完成了微创疝修补术:腹腔镜 36 例,机器人 39 例。基线人口统计学和疝特征相似。机器人手术的中位手术时间更长(146 分钟 vs 94 分钟;P<0.001)。每个队列均有 2 例内脏损伤,但无全层肠穿孔或非计划再次手术。术前和术后第 0、1、7 天或 30 天的 NRS-11 评分无显著差异。具体来说,术后第 1 天的中位 NRS-11 评分相同(5 分 vs 5 分;P=0.61)。同样,术后患者报告的结局测量信息系统 3a 和疝特异性生活质量评分、住院时间和并发症发生率也相似。机器人平台增加了成本(总成本比,1.13 比 0.97;P=0.03),这主要是由于额外手术时间的成本增加(1.25 比 0.85;P<0.001)。
腹腔镜和机器人行腹腔内网片腹疝修补术的结果相当。机器人方法增加的手术时间和相应的成本并不能带来可衡量的临床获益。
ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT03283982。