Department of Surgery, Maria Middelares Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Department of Medical Direction, Maria Middelares Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
BJS Open. 2021 Jan 8;5(1). doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraa046.
There has been a rapid adoption of robot-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in the USA, despite a lack of proven clinical advantage and higher material cost. No studies have been published regarding the cost and outcome of robotic inguinal hernia surgery in a European Union setting.
A retrospective comparative study was performed on the early outcome and costs related to laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, with either conventional or robot-assisted surgery.
The study analysed 676 patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (272 conventional and 404 robotic repairs). Conventional laparoscopic and robotic repair groups were comparable in terms of duration of surgery (57.6 versus 56.2 min respectively; P = 0.224), intraoperative complication rate (1.1 versus 1.2 per cent; P = 0.990), in-hospital complication rate (4.4 versus 4.5 per cent; P = 0.230) and readmission rate (3.3 versus 1.2 per cent; P = 0.095). There was a significant difference in hospital stay in favour of the robotic approach (P = 0.014), with more patients treated on an outpatient basis in the robotic group (59.2 per cent versus 70.0 per cent for conventional repair). At 4-week follow-up, equal numbers of seromas or haematomas were recorded in the conventional laparoscopic and robotic groups (13.3 versus 15.7 per cent respectively; P = 0.431), but significantly more umbilical wound infections were seen in the conventional group (3.0 per cent versus 0 per cent in the robotic group; P = 0.001). Robotic inguinal hernia repair was significantly more expensive overall, with a mean cost of €2612 versus €1963 for the conventional laparoscopic approach (mean difference €649; P < 0.001).
Robot-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair was significantly more expensive than conventional laparoscopy. More patients were treated as outpatients in the robotic group. Postoperative complications were infrequent and mild.
尽管机器人辅助腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术缺乏临床优势且材料成本更高,但它在美国得到了迅速采用。在欧盟环境下,尚未有关于机器人腹股沟疝手术的成本和结果的研究发表。
对腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术(传统腹腔镜手术和机器人辅助手术)的早期结果和成本进行了回顾性比较研究。
研究分析了 676 例腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术患者(272 例传统腹腔镜手术和 404 例机器人手术)。传统腹腔镜组和机器人组的手术时间(分别为 57.6 分钟和 56.2 分钟;P=0.224)、术中并发症发生率(分别为 1.1%和 1.2%;P=0.990)、住院期间并发症发生率(分别为 4.4%和 4.5%;P=0.230)和再入院率(分别为 3.3%和 1.2%;P=0.095)相当。机器人组的住院时间更短,这一差异具有统计学意义(P=0.014),并且有更多的患者可以在门诊接受治疗(机器人组为 59.2%,传统组为 70.0%)。在 4 周随访时,传统腹腔镜组和机器人组的血清肿或血肿发生率相当(分别为 13.3%和 15.7%;P=0.431),但传统组的脐部伤口感染明显更多(3.0%对机器人组的 0%;P=0.001)。总的来说,机器人辅助腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术的费用明显更高,传统腹腔镜组的平均费用为 1963 欧元,机器人组为 2612 欧元(平均差值为 649 欧元;P<0.001)。
机器人辅助腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术比传统腹腔镜手术的费用明显更高。机器人组有更多的患者可以作为门诊患者接受治疗。术后并发症少见且轻微。