A comparison between robotic-assisted and open approaches for large ventral hernia repair—a multicenter analysis of 30 days outcomes using the ACHQC database

Diego L. Lima, Raquel Nogueira, Jianing Ma, Mohamad Jalloh, Shannon Keisling, Adel Alhaj Saleh, Prashanth Sreeramoju
{"title":"A comparison between robotic-assisted and open approaches for large ventral hernia repair—a multicenter analysis of 30 days outcomes using the ACHQC database","authors":"Diego L. Lima, Raquel Nogueira, Jianing Ma, Mohamad Jalloh, Shannon Keisling, Adel Alhaj Saleh, Prashanth Sreeramoju","doi":"10.1007/s00464-024-11249-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Introduction</h3><p>Over the last few decades, there has been an increase in the use of a minimally invasive (MIS) approach for complex hernias involving component separation. A robotic platform provides better visualization and mobilization of tissues for component separation. We aim to assess the outcomes of open and robotic-assisted approaches for large VHR utilizing the ACHQC national database.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) was performed to include all adult patients who had primary and incisional midline ventral hernias larger than 10 cm and underwent elective open and robotic hernia repairs with mesh from January 2013 to March 2023. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed comparing Open and Robotic approaches.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>The ACHQC database identified 5,516 patients with midline hernias larger than 10 cm who underwent VHR. The open group (OG) had 4,978 patients, and the robotic group (RG) had 538. The RG had a higher median BMI (33.3 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (IQR 29.8–38.1) vs 32.7 (IQR 28.7–36.6) (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Median hernia width was 15 cm (IQR 12–18) in the OG and 12 cm in the RG (10–14) (<i>p &lt; </i>0.001). Sublay positioning of the mesh was the most common. The fascial closure was higher in the RG (524; 97% versus 4,708; 95%—<i>p</i> = 0.005). Median Length of Stay (LOS) was 5 days (IQR 4–7) in the OG and 2 days (IQR 1–3) in the RG (<i>p &lt; </i>0.001). The readmission rate was higher in the OG (<i>n</i> = 374; 7.5% vs <i>n</i> = 16; 3%; <i>p &lt; </i>0.001). 30-day SSI were higher in the OG (343; 6.9%% vs 14; 2.6%; <i>p &lt; </i>0.001). Logistic regression analysis identified diabetes (OR 1.6; CI 1.1–2.1; <i>p</i> = 0.006) and BMI (OR 1.04, CI 1.02–1.06; <i>p &lt; </i>0.001) as predictors of SSIs, while the robotic approach was protective (OR 0.35, CI 0.17–0.64; <i>p</i> = 0.002). For SSO, logistic regression showed BMI (OR 1.04, CI 1.03–1.06; <i>p &lt; </i>0.001) and smoking (OR 1.8, CI 1.3–2.4; <i>p &lt; </i>0.001) as predictors Robotic approach was associated with lower readmission rates (OR .04, CI 0.2–0.6; <i>p &lt; </i>0.001).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>A robotic approach improves early 30-day outcomes compared to an open technique for large VHR. There was no difference in SSO at 30 days.</p>","PeriodicalId":501625,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy","volume":"212 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11249-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Over the last few decades, there has been an increase in the use of a minimally invasive (MIS) approach for complex hernias involving component separation. A robotic platform provides better visualization and mobilization of tissues for component separation. We aim to assess the outcomes of open and robotic-assisted approaches for large VHR utilizing the ACHQC national database.

Methods

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) was performed to include all adult patients who had primary and incisional midline ventral hernias larger than 10 cm and underwent elective open and robotic hernia repairs with mesh from January 2013 to March 2023. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed comparing Open and Robotic approaches.

Results

The ACHQC database identified 5,516 patients with midline hernias larger than 10 cm who underwent VHR. The open group (OG) had 4,978 patients, and the robotic group (RG) had 538. The RG had a higher median BMI (33.3 kg/m2 (IQR 29.8–38.1) vs 32.7 (IQR 28.7–36.6) (p < 0.001). Median hernia width was 15 cm (IQR 12–18) in the OG and 12 cm in the RG (10–14) (p < 0.001). Sublay positioning of the mesh was the most common. The fascial closure was higher in the RG (524; 97% versus 4,708; 95%—p = 0.005). Median Length of Stay (LOS) was 5 days (IQR 4–7) in the OG and 2 days (IQR 1–3) in the RG (p < 0.001). The readmission rate was higher in the OG (n = 374; 7.5% vs n = 16; 3%; p < 0.001). 30-day SSI were higher in the OG (343; 6.9%% vs 14; 2.6%; p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis identified diabetes (OR 1.6; CI 1.1–2.1; p = 0.006) and BMI (OR 1.04, CI 1.02–1.06; p < 0.001) as predictors of SSIs, while the robotic approach was protective (OR 0.35, CI 0.17–0.64; p = 0.002). For SSO, logistic regression showed BMI (OR 1.04, CI 1.03–1.06; p < 0.001) and smoking (OR 1.8, CI 1.3–2.4; p < 0.001) as predictors Robotic approach was associated with lower readmission rates (OR .04, CI 0.2–0.6; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

A robotic approach improves early 30-day outcomes compared to an open technique for large VHR. There was no difference in SSO at 30 days.

Abstract Image

大型腹股沟疝修补术中机器人辅助方法与开放式方法的比较--利用 ACHQC 数据库对 30 天疗效进行的多中心分析
导言:过去几十年来,越来越多的复杂疝气患者采用微创(MIS)方法进行疝成分分离。机器人平台可提供更好的可视化和组织移动能力,以便进行组件分离。我们的目的是利用 ACHQC 国家数据库评估开放式和机器人辅助方法治疗大型 VHR 的效果。我们对腹部核心健康质量协作组织 (ACHQC) 前瞻性收集的数据进行了回顾性审查,纳入了 2013 年 1 月至 2023 年 3 月期间患有原发性和切口中线腹股沟疝(大于 10 厘米)并接受选择性开放式和机器人网片疝修补术的所有成年患者。结果ACHQC数据库共发现5516名中线疝大于10厘米的患者接受了VHR手术。开放组(OG)有 4978 名患者,机器人组(RG)有 538 名患者。RG 组的中位体重指数(33.3 kg/m2 (IQR 29.8-38.1) vs 32.7 (IQR 28.7-36.6) (p <0.001))较高。OG 和 RG 的疝中位宽度分别为 15 厘米(IQR 12-18)和 12 厘米(10-14)(p < 0.001)。网片下层定位最常见。RG 的筋膜闭合率更高(524;97% 对 4708;95%-p = 0.005)。OG 的中位住院时间(LOS)为 5 天(IQR 4-7),RG 为 2 天(IQR 1-3)(p < 0.001)。手术组的再入院率更高(n = 374; 7.5% vs n = 16; 3%; p <0.001)。手术组的 30 天 SSI 更高(343;6.9% vs 14;2.6%;p <;0.001)。逻辑回归分析发现,糖尿病(OR 1.6; CI 1.1-2.1; p = 0.006)和体重指数(OR 1.04, CI 1.02-1.06; p <0.001)是预测 SSI 的因素,而机器人方法具有保护作用(OR 0.35, CI 0.17-0.64; p = 0.002)。对于 SSO,逻辑回归结果显示 BMI(OR 1.04,CI 1.03-1.06;p <;0.001)和吸烟(OR 1.8,CI 1.3-2.4;p <;0.001)是预测因素 机器人方法与较低的再入院率相关(OR .04,CI 0.2-0.6;p <;0.001)。30天后的SSO没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信