From the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2022 May 1;28(5):e142-e148. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001133. Epub 2022 Feb 1.
Despite increasing use of robotic technology for minimally invasive hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy, evidence supporting the benefits of these costly procedures remains inconclusive. This study aimed to compare differences in perioperative complications, 30-day readmissions, and costs between robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy with concurrent sacrocolpopexy using a large national database.
Using the 2009-2015 Nationwide Readmissions Database and procedure codes, we identified patients who underwent a robot-assisted or conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy. We measured in-hospital perioperative complications using diagnosis and procedure codes and measured 30-day readmissions based on patient linkages across hospitalizations. Hospital costs were estimated using charges and cost-to-charge ratios. These outcomes were compared between robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures using bivariate and multivariable regression analysis.
Our weighted sample included a total of 7,675 patients. Major perioperative complications occurred in 6.7% of robot-assisted and 11.2% of conventional laparoscopic procedures (unadjusted P < 0.001; adjusted odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.93; P = 0.02). Hospital costs were higher in robot-assisted than in conventional laparoscopic procedures (respective median costs, $16,367 vs $13,898; P < 0.001), with an adjusted cost ratio of 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.31; P < 0.001). The risk of 30-day readmission was similar between robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures.
Nationally representative data suggest that, in laparoscopic hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy, the robot-assisted approach is associated with a lower risk of perioperative complications, despite higher costs, compared with the conventional one. The risk of 30-day readmission was similar between the robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic approaches.
尽管微创子宫切除术联合骶骨阴道固定术越来越多地采用机器人技术,但支持这些昂贵手术的益处的证据仍不确定。本研究旨在使用大型全国数据库比较机器人辅助与传统腹腔镜子宫切除术联合骶骨阴道固定术的围手术期并发症、30 天再入院率和成本差异。
使用 2009-2015 年全国再入院数据库和程序代码,我们确定了接受机器人辅助或传统腹腔镜子宫切除术联合骶骨阴道固定术的患者。我们使用诊断和程序代码测量住院期间的围手术期并发症,并根据患者在不同住院期间的联系来衡量 30 天再入院率。使用收费和收费与成本比来估算医院费用。使用双变量和多变量回归分析比较机器人辅助与传统腹腔镜手术的这些结果。
我们的加权样本共包括 7675 名患者。机器人辅助组的主要围手术期并发症发生率为 6.7%,而传统腹腔镜组为 11.2%(未校正 P<0.001;校正优势比,0.69;95%置信区间,0.51-0.93;P=0.02)。机器人辅助组的医院费用高于传统腹腔镜组(相应的中位数费用分别为 16367 美元和 13898 美元;P<0.001),校正后的成本比为 1.24(95%置信区间,1.17-1.31;P<0.001)。机器人辅助与传统腹腔镜手术的 30 天再入院风险相似。
全国代表性数据表明,在腹腔镜子宫切除术联合骶骨阴道固定术中,与传统方法相比,机器人辅助方法的围手术期并发症风险较低,尽管成本较高。机器人辅助与传统腹腔镜方法的 30 天再入院风险相似。