Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2017
Laparoscopic vs Robotic Intraperitoneal Mesh Repair for Incisional Hernia: An Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative Analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Prabhu Ajita S, Dickens Eugene O, Copper Chad M, Mann John W, Yunis Jonathan P, Phillips Sharon, Huang Li-Ching, Poulose Benjamin K, Rosen Michael J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Robotic intraperitoneal mesh placement (rIPOM) has emerged recently as an alternative to laparoscopic intraperitoneal mesh placement (LapIPOM) for minimally invasive incisional hernia repair. We aimed to compare LapIPOM with rIPOM in terms of hospital length of stay (LOS) and 30-day postoperative complications in patients undergoing incisional hernia repair within the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative.
STUDY DESIGN: Propensity score analysis was used to compare matched groups of patients within the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative undergoing LapIPOM vs rIPOM. The primary outcomes measure was hospital LOS and secondary outcomes were 30-day wound events.
RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-four (71.9%) patients underwent LapIPOM and 177 (28.1%) underwent rIPOM. The laparoscopic group had an increased median LOS (1 vs 0 days; interquartile range 3.00; p < 0.001). The risk of surgical site occurrence was higher in the LapIPOM group vs the rIPOM group (14% vs 5%; p = 0.001); however, surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention was similar between the groups (1% vs 0%; p = 1). Operative time longer than 2 hours was more common in the rIPOM group (47% vs 31%; p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite longer operative times using the rIPOM approach, patients undergoing rIPOM had a significantly shorter LOS than LapIPOM, without additional risk of wound morbidity requiring intervention. Additional studies are necessary to identify the best candidates for the rIPOM approach.
STUDY DESIGN: Propensity score analysis was used to compare matched groups of patients within the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative undergoing LapIPOM vs rIPOM. The primary outcomes measure was hospital LOS and secondary outcomes were 30-day wound events.
RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-four (71.9%) patients underwent LapIPOM and 177 (28.1%) underwent rIPOM. The laparoscopic group had an increased median LOS (1 vs 0 days; interquartile range 3.00; p < 0.001). The risk of surgical site occurrence was higher in the LapIPOM group vs the rIPOM group (14% vs 5%; p = 0.001); however, surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention was similar between the groups (1% vs 0%; p = 1). Operative time longer than 2 hours was more common in the rIPOM group (47% vs 31%; p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite longer operative times using the rIPOM approach, patients undergoing rIPOM had a significantly shorter LOS than LapIPOM, without additional risk of wound morbidity requiring intervention. Additional studies are necessary to identify the best candidates for the rIPOM approach.