Suppr超能文献

腹腔镜与机器人辅助腹疝修补术——ACHQC数据库5年分析

Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Ventral Hernia Repair - An ACHQC Database 5-Year Analysis.

作者信息

Lima Diego L, Nogueira Raquel, Kasakewich Joao P G, Balthazar da Silveira Carlos Andre, Rasador Ana Caroline Dias, Phillips Sharon, Malcher Flavio

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, The Bronx, NY, United States.

Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.

出版信息

J Abdom Wall Surg. 2025 Mar 11;4:13352. doi: 10.3389/jaws.2025.13352. eCollection 2025.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

To compare laparoscopic and ventral hernia repair (VHR) in the last 5 years in the United States utilizing the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) database.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the ACHQC database was performed to include all adult patients that underwent laparoscopic and robotic VHR in the last 5 years. Univariate analysis was performed to compare outcomes from laparoscopic and robotic-assisted approaches across perioperative and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

ACHQC database identified 11,096 patients with midline hernias who underwent VHR with mesh. The Laparoscopic group with patients from 2018 to 2023 (LAP) had 2,063 patients, and the robotic group (ROBO) had 9,033 patients. There was no difference in sex, age, BMI, DM, smoking status and COPD between groups. Median hernia width was 4 cm (IQR 2-6) in the ROBO group and 3 cm (IQR 2-5) in the LAP group (p < 0.001). Incisional hernia was higher in the ROBO group 5,259 (58%) versus 1,099 (53%) in the LAP group (p < 0.001). Recurrent hernia was more common in the ROBO group when compared with the LAP group (p < 0.001). Both groups had more permanent synthetic mesh. Retromuscular repair was higher in the ROBO group, 3,201 (37.6%) versus 68 (4.2%) in the LAP group (p < 0.001). The intraperitoneal repair was higher in the LAP group 1,363 (83%) versus 2,925 (34%) in the ROBO group (p < 0.001) Transversus Abdominis Release (TAR) was higher in the ROBO group 1,314 (14.5%) versus 5 (0.2%) in the LAP group (p < 0.001). Fascial closure was higher in the ROBO group (8,649; 96.5% versus 1,359; 67.3% in the LAP group p < 0.001). Regarding mesh fixation, regular suture was higher in the ROBO group 92% versus 61% in the LAP group (p < 0.001). Tacks (p < 0.001) was higher in the LAP group. The ROBO group had more patients with an operative time of 240+ minutes when compared with the LAP group (p < 0.001). There was no difference in 30-days readmission rates, recurrence, reoperation, overall postoperative complications, 30-day SSI, SSO, seroma and SSOPI between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The Robotic approach was associated with more technically challenging ventral hernia repairs with low complication rates over time. However, no differences in postoperative complications were found between the groups.

摘要

引言

利用腹部核心健康质量协作组织(ACHQC)数据库,比较美国过去5年腹腔镜与腹侧疝修补术(VHR)的情况。

材料与方法

对ACHQC数据库中前瞻性收集的数据进行回顾性分析,纳入过去5年接受腹腔镜和机器人辅助VHR的所有成年患者。进行单因素分析,以比较腹腔镜和机器人辅助手术在围手术期和术后的结果。

结果

ACHQC数据库识别出11,096例接受网片修补的中线疝患者。2018年至2023年的腹腔镜组(LAP)有2,063例患者,机器人组(ROBO)有9,033例患者。两组在性别、年龄、体重指数、糖尿病、吸烟状况和慢性阻塞性肺疾病方面无差异。ROBO组疝的中位宽度为4厘米(四分位间距2 - 6),LAP组为3厘米(四分位间距2 - 5)(p < 0.001)。ROBO组的切口疝发生率更高,为5,259例(58%),而LAP组为1,099例(53%)(p < 0.001)。与LAP组相比,ROBO组的复发性疝更常见(p < 0.001)。两组使用的永久性合成网片更多。ROBO组的肌后修补更高,为3,201例(37.6%),而LAP组为68例(4.2%)(p < 0.001)。LAP组的腹腔内修补更高,为1,363例(83%),而ROBO组为2,925例(34%)(p < 0.001)。ROBO组的腹横肌松解术(TAR)更高,为1,314例(14.5%),而LAP组为5例(0.2%)(p < 0.001)。ROBO组的筋膜缝合更高(8,649例;96.5%),而LAP组为1,359例(67.3%)(p < 0.001)。关于网片固定,ROBO组使用常规缝线的比例更高,为92%,而LAP组为61%(p < 0.001)。LAP组使用钉合器的比例更高(p < 0.001)。与LAP组相比,ROBO组手术时间超过240分钟的患者更多(p < 0.001)。两组在30天再入院率、复发、再次手术、总体术后并发症、30天手术部位感染、手术部位裂开、血清肿和手术部位疼痛性感染方面无差异。

结论

随着时间推移,机器人手术方式与技术上更具挑战性的腹侧疝修补相关,但并发症发生率较低。然而,两组在术后并发症方面未发现差异。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

4
Visualisation ergonomics and robotic surgery.可视化人机工程学与机器人手术。
J Robot Surg. 2023 Oct;17(5):1873-1878. doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01618-7. Epub 2023 May 19.

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