Suppr超能文献

腹疝修补术后腹壁重建的比较方法:开放手术与微创手术

Comparative approach for abdominal wall reconstruction after ventral hernia: open versus minimally invasive surgery.

作者信息

González De Godos Andrea, Sánchez González Javier, López Rodríguez Beatriz, Lizarralde Capelastegui Andrea Carlota, Estébanez Peláez Guillermo, Pacheco Sánchez David, Toledano Trincado Miguel

机构信息

General surgery and digestive system, Río Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain.

Chief of service, Río Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain.

出版信息

Hernia. 2025 Jan 20;29(1):69. doi: 10.1007/s10029-025-03264-4.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The classic open ventral hernia repair provides excellent results in recurrences. However, wound complications are the Achilles heel for a good overall clinical outcome. Laparoscopic surgery is in general associated with less pain, better esthetic results, faster recovery, and lower incidence of wound complications. Robotic procedures provide increased degrees of freedom, may improve ergonomics, and allow scaling and performance of finer movements deemed difficult through alternate surgical approaches.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to compare outcomes between open and minimally invasive approaches, with the primary objective of determining differences in postoperative course and hospitalization.

METHODS

Patients underwent any of the three procedures: open Rives-Stoppa, laparoscopic eTEP or robotic eTEP between June 2020 and January 2024 for the treatment of one or more midline abdominal wall hernias alongside rectus abdominis diástasis. The width diameter of the hernias was between 3 and 10 cm and techniques that did not place the mesh in a retromuscular position or required component separation are excluded.

RESULTS

Robotic surgery had a lower score on the visual analogue scale for pain at discharge (p-value < 0.00). Minimally invasive surgery allows for the placement of larger meshes compared to the open approach (p < 0.05), although the surgical time is longer (p-value < 0.00). There were no statistically significant differences for hospital stay (p-value = 0.46), complications (p-value = 0.52) or recurrence (p-value = 0.70).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery allows for the placement of larger meshes compared to the open approach without increasing the morbidity of the procedure or the immediate postoperative pain, despite generally having longer operative times.

摘要

引言

经典的开放性腹疝修补术在预防复发方面效果良好。然而,伤口并发症是影响整体临床良好结局的致命弱点。一般来说,腹腔镜手术疼痛较轻、美容效果更好、恢复更快且伤口并发症发生率更低。机器人手术提供了更大的活动自由度,可能改善人体工程学,并允许进行通过其他手术方法难以完成的精细动作的缩放和操作。

目的

本研究的目的是比较开放手术和微创方法的治疗效果,主要目标是确定术后病程和住院时间的差异。

方法

2020年6月至2024年1月期间,患者接受了以下三种手术中的任何一种:开放性里夫斯 - 斯托帕手术、腹腔镜下全腹膜外修补术(eTEP)或机器人辅助eTEP,用于治疗一个或多个伴有腹直肌分离的中线腹壁疝。疝的宽度直径在3至10厘米之间,不包括未将补片置于肌后位置或需要进行组织分离的技术。

结果

机器人手术出院时视觉模拟疼痛评分较低(p值<0.00)。与开放手术相比,微创手术能够放置更大的补片(p<0.05),尽管手术时间更长(p值<0.00)。住院时间(p值=0.46)、并发症(p值=0.52)或复发率(p值=0.70)方面无统计学显著差异。

结论

与开放手术相比,微创手术能够放置更大的补片,且不增加手术发病率或术后即刻疼痛,尽管手术时间通常更长。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验