Department of Surgery, Northwest Hospital, 5401 Old Court Road, Randallstown, MD, 21133, USA.
Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Surg Endosc. 2022 Sep;36(9):6886-6895. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09027-x. Epub 2022 Jan 12.
Up to 37% of class three obesity patients have a Hiatal Hernia (HH). Most of the existent HHs get repaired at the time of bariatric surgery. Although the robotic platform might offer potential technical advantages over traditional laparoscopy, the clinical outcomes of the concurrent bariatric surgery and HH repair comparing robotic vs laparoscopic approaches have not been reported.
Using the 2015-2018 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, patients between 18 and 65 year old who underwent Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) with concurrent HH repair were identified. Demographic, operative, and 30-day postoperative outcomes data were compared between laparoscopic and robotic groups. To adjust for potential confounders, 1:1 propensity score matching was performed using 22 preoperative characteristics.
75,034 patients underwent SG (n = 61,458) or RYGB (n = 13,576) with concurrent HH repair. The operative time was significantly longer in the Robotic-assisted compared to the laparoscopic approach both for SG (102.31 ± 44 vs. 75.27 ± 37; P < 0.001) and for RYGB (163.48 ± 65 vs. 132.87 ± 57; P < 0.001). In the SG cohort (4639 matched cases), the robotic approach showed similar results in 30 day outcomes as in the laparoscopic approach, with no statistical difference. Conversely, for the RYGB cohort (1502 matched cases), the robotic approach showed significantly fewer requirements for blood transfusions (0.3% vs. 1.7%; P = 0.001), fewer anastomotic leaks (0.2% vs. 0.8%; P = 0.035), and less postoperative bleeding (0.4% vs. 1.1%; P = 0.049).
Robotic concurrent bariatric surgery and HH repair leads to similar overall clinical outcomes as the laparoscopic approach despite longer operative times. Furthermore, the robotic approach is associated with reduced blood transfusion and anastomotic leak incidence in the RYGB group.
高达 37%的三类肥胖患者患有食管裂孔疝(HH)。大多数现有的 HH 在减重手术时得到修复。尽管机器人平台可能相对于传统腹腔镜提供了潜在的技术优势,但同时进行减重手术和 HH 修复的机器人与腹腔镜方法的临床结果尚未报道。
使用 2015-2018 年代谢和减重手术认证和质量改进计划(MBSAQIP)数据库,确定了 18 至 65 岁之间接受袖状胃切除术(SG)或 Roux-en-Y 胃旁路术(RYGB)并同时进行 HH 修复的患者。比较腹腔镜和机器人组的人口统计学、手术和 30 天术后结果数据。为了调整潜在的混杂因素,使用 22 个术前特征进行了 1:1 倾向评分匹配。
75034 例患者接受了 SG(n=61458)或 RYGB(n=13576)并同时进行 HH 修复。机器人辅助组的手术时间明显长于腹腔镜组,SG 组为 102.31±44 与 75.27±37(P<0.001),RYGB 组为 163.48±65 与 132.87±57(P<0.001)。在 SG 队列(4639 例匹配病例)中,机器人方法在 30 天的结果与腹腔镜方法相似,没有统计学差异。相反,在 RYGB 队列(1502 例匹配病例)中,机器人方法的输血需求显著减少(0.3%对 1.7%;P=0.001),吻合口漏的发生率较低(0.2%对 0.8%;P=0.035),术后出血较少(0.4%对 1.1%;P=0.049)。
尽管手术时间较长,但机器人同时进行减重手术和 HH 修复与腹腔镜方法相比,导致整体临床结果相似。此外,机器人方法与 RYGB 组输血减少和吻合口漏发生率降低相关。