From the Department of Surgery (Tonelli, Bunn, Kulshrestha, Cohn, Luchette, Baker), Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL.
Department of Surgery, Edward Hines Jr Veterans Administration Hospital, Hines, IL (Tonelli, Luchette, Baker).
J Am Coll Surg. 2022 Jul 1;235(1):119-127. doi: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000235. Epub 2022 Apr 15.
Current studies evaluating outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic inguinal hernia repair, in general, include small numbers of robotic cases and are not powered to allow a direct comparison of the 3 approaches to repair.
We queried the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database to identify patients undergoing initial elective inguinal hernia repair between 2013 and 2017. Propensity score matching and multivariable logistic regression were used to make risk-adjusted assessments of association between surgical approach and outcome.
A total of 39,358 patients underwent initial elective inguinal hernia repair; 32,881 (84%) underwent an open approach, 6,135 (16%) underwent a laparoscopic approach, and 342 (1%) underwent a robotic-assisted approach. Two hundred sixty-six (1%) patients had a recurrent repair performed during follow-up. On univariate comparison, patients undergoing a robotic-assisted approach had longer operative times for unilateral repair than those undergoing either an open or laparoscopic (73 ± 31 vs 74 ± 29 vs 107 ± 41 minutes; p < 0.001) approach. On multivariable logistic regression, patients with a higher BMI had an increased adjusted risk of a postoperative complication, but there was no association between surgical approach and complication rate. Three hundred forty-two patients undergoing robotic repair were 1:3:3 propensity score matched to 1,026 patients undergoing laparoscopic and 1,026 undergoing open repair. On comparison of matched cohorts, there were no statistical differences between approaches regarding recurrence (0.6% vs 0.8% vs 0.6%, p > 0.05) or complication rate (0.6% vs 1.2% vs 1.2%, p > 0.05).
In patients undergoing initial elective inguinal hernia repair, rates of hernia recurrence are low independent of surgical approach. Both robotic and laparoscopic approaches demonstrate rates of early postoperative morbidity and recurrence similar to those for the open approach. The robotic approach is associated with longer operative time than either laparoscopic or open repair.
目前评估开放、腹腔镜和机器人腹股沟疝修补术结果的研究通常包括少量机器人病例,并且没有足够的能力来直接比较这 3 种手术方法。
我们查询了退伍军人事务部手术质量改进计划数据库,以确定 2013 年至 2017 年间接受初始择期腹股沟疝修补术的患者。采用倾向评分匹配和多变量逻辑回归对手术方式与结局之间的关联进行风险调整评估。
共有 39358 例患者接受了初始择期腹股沟疝修补术;32881 例(84%)采用开放手术,6135 例(16%)采用腹腔镜手术,342 例(1%)采用机器人辅助手术。266 例(1%)患者在随访期间接受了再次修复。在单变量比较中,行机器人辅助手术的单侧修复手术时间长于开放或腹腔镜手术(73 ± 31 比 74 ± 29 比 107 ± 41 分钟;p < 0.001)。多变量逻辑回归分析显示,BMI 较高的患者术后并发症的调整风险增加,但手术方式与并发症发生率之间没有关联。342 例行机器人手术的患者按照 1:3:3 的倾向评分匹配,分别与 1026 例行腹腔镜手术和 1026 例行开放手术的患者进行匹配。在比较匹配队列时,在复发率(0.6%比 0.8%比 0.6%,p > 0.05)或并发症发生率(0.6%比 1.2%比 1.2%,p > 0.05)方面,3 种方法之间没有统计学差异。
在接受初始择期腹股沟疝修补术的患者中,无论手术方式如何,疝复发率均较低。机器人和腹腔镜方法的早期术后发病率和复发率与开放方法相似。机器人方法的手术时间长于腹腔镜或开放修复。