Kansas journal of medicine · 2022
Comparing Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hiatal Hernia Repair.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tjeerdsma Marcus, Quinn Karson R, Helmer Stephen D, Vincent Kyle B
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery is becoming increasingly prevalent. The purpose of this study was to compare hospital length of stay and outcomes of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair.
METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of 58 patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic (n = 16, 27.6%) or conventional laparoscopic (n = 42, 72.4%) hiatal hernia repair.
RESULTS: Patient characteristics and comorbidities were similar between groups. The robotic-assisted group had a significantly higher use of fundoplication (81.3% vs. 38.1%; p = 0.007). Complications observed between the robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic groups were pneumothorax (6.3% vs. 11.9%; p = 1.000), infection (0% vs. 4.8%; p = 1.000), perforation (0% vs. 2.4%; p = 1.000), bleeding (6.3% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.479), ICU admission (31.3% vs. 11.9%; p = 0.119), and mechanical ventilation (18.8% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.60). There were no reported complications of dysphagia, deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolus, myocardial infarction, or death in either group. Hospital length of stay was similar for robotic versus conventional patients (3.0 vs. 2.5 days; p = 0.301).
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic hiatal hernia were compared, which demonstrated similar post-operative complication rates and hospital length of stay. The results showed robotic-assisted or conventional laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair can be performed with similar outcomes.
METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of 58 patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic (n = 16, 27.6%) or conventional laparoscopic (n = 42, 72.4%) hiatal hernia repair.
RESULTS: Patient characteristics and comorbidities were similar between groups. The robotic-assisted group had a significantly higher use of fundoplication (81.3% vs. 38.1%; p = 0.007). Complications observed between the robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic groups were pneumothorax (6.3% vs. 11.9%; p = 1.000), infection (0% vs. 4.8%; p = 1.000), perforation (0% vs. 2.4%; p = 1.000), bleeding (6.3% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.479), ICU admission (31.3% vs. 11.9%; p = 0.119), and mechanical ventilation (18.8% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.60). There were no reported complications of dysphagia, deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolus, myocardial infarction, or death in either group. Hospital length of stay was similar for robotic versus conventional patients (3.0 vs. 2.5 days; p = 0.301).
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic hiatal hernia were compared, which demonstrated similar post-operative complication rates and hospital length of stay. The results showed robotic-assisted or conventional laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair can be performed with similar outcomes.