Varvoglis Dimitrios N, Sanchez-Casalongue Manuel, Olson Molly A, DeAngelo Noah, Garbarine Ian, Lipman Jeffrey, Farrell Timothy M, Overby David Wayne, Perez Arielle, Zhou Randal
Department of Surgery, UNC at Chapel Hill, 321 S Columbia Street, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514, USA.
Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, UNC School of Medicine, 321 S Colymbia Street, Chapel Hill, NC, 27278, USA.
Surg Endosc. 2023 Apr;37(4):2923-2931. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09805-7. Epub 2022 Dec 12.
To compare clinical outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic hernia repairs for direct, unilateral inguinal hernia repairs, with particular focus on 30-day morbidity surgical site infection (SSI); surgical site occurrence (SSO); SSI/SSO requiring procedural interventions (SSOPI), reoperation, and recurrence.
The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database was queried for patients undergoing elective, primary, > 3 cm medial, unilateral inguinal hernia repairs with an open (Lichtenstein), laparoscopic, or robotic operative approach. Preoperative demographics and patient characteristics, operative techniques, and outcomes were studied. A 1-to-1 propensity score matching algorithm was used for each operative approach pair to reduce selection bias.
There were 848 operations included: 297 were open, 285 laparoscopic, and 266 robotic hernia repairs. There was no evidence of a difference in primary endpoints at 30 days including SSI, SSO, SSI/SSO requiring procedural interventions (SSOPI), reoperation, readmission, or recurrence for any of the operative approach pairs (open vs. robotic, open vs. laparoscopic, robotic vs. laparoscopic). For the open vs. laparoscopic groups, QoL score at 30 day was lower (better) for laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery (OR 0.53 [0.31, 0.92], p = 0.03), but this difference did not hold at the 1-year survey (OR 1.37 [0.48, 3.92], p = 0.55). Similarly, patients who underwent robotic repair were more likely to have a higher (worse) 30-day QoL score (OR 2.01 [1.18, 3.42], p = 0.01), but no evidence of a difference at 1 year (OR 0.83 [0.3, 2.26] p = 0.71).
Our study did not reveal significant post-operative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for large medial inguinal hernias. Surgeons should continue to tailor operative approach based on patient needs and their own surgical expertise.
比较开放手术、腹腔镜手术和机器人辅助手术治疗直接、单侧腹股沟疝的临床结局,特别关注30天发病率,包括手术部位感染(SSI)、手术部位事件(SSO)、需要手术干预的SSI/SSO(SSOPI)、再次手术和复发情况。
查询腹部核心健康质量协作数据库,筛选接受择期、初次、内侧大于3 cm的单侧腹股沟疝修补术的患者,手术方式包括开放手术(Lichtenstein手术)、腹腔镜手术或机器人辅助手术。研究术前人口统计学和患者特征、手术技术及结局。采用1:1倾向评分匹配算法对每种手术方式进行配对,以减少选择偏倚。
共纳入848例手术:297例为开放手术,285例为腹腔镜手术,266例为机器人辅助疝修补术。对于任何手术方式配对(开放手术与机器人辅助手术、开放手术与腹腔镜手术、机器人辅助手术与腹腔镜手术),在30天时的主要终点,包括SSI、SSO、需要手术干预的SSI/SSO(SSOPI)、再次手术、再次入院或复发方面,均未发现差异。对于开放手术与腹腔镜手术组,腹腔镜手术在30天时的生活质量评分低于(更好)开放手术(OR 0.53 [0.31, 0.92],p = 0.03),但在1年随访时这种差异不存在(OR 1.37 [0.48, 3.92],p = 0.55)。同样,接受机器人辅助手术的患者在30天时更有可能获得较高(较差)的生活质量评分(OR 2.01 [1.18, 3.42],p = 0.01),但在1年时没有差异的证据(OR 0.83 [0.3, 2.26],p = 0.71)。
我们的研究未发现开放手术、腹腔镜手术和机器人辅助手术治疗大型内侧腹股沟疝的术后结局有显著差异。外科医生应继续根据患者需求和自身手术专业知识来选择手术方式。