Department of Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
StatConsult GmbH, Halberstädter Strasse 40a, 39112, Magdeburg, Germany.
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2021 Aug;406(5):1387-1395. doi: 10.1007/s00423-020-02051-2. Epub 2021 Jan 6.
The robotic system was introduced to overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy. For complex oncological operations, it appears to offer further advantages. With regard to hiatal hernia repair, its role has yet to be determined.
All consecutive patients who received elective laparoscopic or robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair at a single institution between January 2016 and July 2020 were retrospectively evaluated. We compared both techniques with particular focus on their short-term outcome. A propensity score-matched comparison considering clinical and surgical covariates was also performed between the two groups.
140 patients were included, and 55 (39.3%) underwent a robot-assisted procedure. The baseline demographics and the frequency of previous abdominal operations were comparable for both groups. The size of the hiatal hernia did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.06). The mean operative time was significantly longer for the robot-assisted procedure (149 vs. 125 min; p < 0.01) but decreased markedly during the study period. By contrast, no significant differences were observed in terms of conversion rate (p = 1.0) and blood loss (p = 0.25). Likewise, the postoperative morbidity was comparable for both groups (10.9 vs. 12.9; p = 0.79). The hospital length of stay was not significantly different between the laparoscopic and robotic group (4.0 vs. 3.6 days; p = 0.2). After propensity score-matching, 48 patients were identified for each group. Except for the operative time, no other significant differences were found. Thus, the results of the univariate analysis were confirmed.
Our initial results failed to demonstrate a clear advantage of the robotic technique in patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease and/or symptomatic hiatal hernias.
引入机器人系统是为了克服传统腹腔镜技术的局限性。对于复杂的肿瘤手术,它似乎提供了更多的优势。然而,对于食管裂孔疝修补术,其作用尚未确定。
回顾性分析了 2016 年 1 月至 2020 年 7 月在一家机构接受择期腹腔镜或机器人辅助食管裂孔疝修补术的所有连续患者。我们特别关注它们的短期结果,比较了这两种技术。还考虑了临床和手术协变量,对两组进行了倾向评分匹配比较。
共纳入 140 例患者,其中 55 例(39.3%)接受了机器人辅助手术。两组的基线人口统计学特征和既往腹部手术次数相当。食管裂孔疝的大小在两组之间无显著差异(p=0.06)。机器人辅助手术的平均手术时间明显更长(149 分钟 vs. 125 分钟;p<0.01),但在研究期间显著下降。相比之下,两组的转化率(p=1.0)和出血量(p=0.25)无显著差异。同样,两组的术后发病率相当(10.9% vs. 12.9%;p=0.79)。腹腔镜组和机器人组的住院时间无显著差异(4.0 天 vs. 3.6 天;p=0.2)。在倾向评分匹配后,每组有 48 例患者。除手术时间外,其他结果无显著差异。因此,单因素分析的结果得到了证实。
我们的初步结果未能证明机器人技术在难治性胃食管反流病和/或有症状食管裂孔疝患者中具有明显优势。