Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Elective Sigmoid Resection for Complicated Diverticulitis.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Peyton Margaret Weaver Murdock, Alexander Carmelo Venero, Robert Eric Heidel, Blake William Hale, Andrew Joseph Russ
{"title":"Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Elective Sigmoid Resection for Complicated Diverticulitis.","authors":"Peyton Margaret Weaver Murdock, Alexander Carmelo Venero, Robert Eric Heidel, Blake William Hale, Andrew Joseph Russ","doi":"10.4293/JSLS.2024.00079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Minimally invasive surgical techniques for colorectal surgery have continued to grow in prevalence with robotic surgery potentially providing advantages in complex pelvic operations. We sought to examine the outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic elective sigmoid colon resection for complicated diverticulitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective review of patients at an academic tertiary care center from 2018-2023 who underwent elective minimally invasive sigmoid colon resections for complicated diverticulitis. Multiple regression analysis was performed with primary outcomes being reoperation within 30 days and overall complications. Secondary outcomes included conversion to open, estimated blood loss, operative time, days until return of bowel function, and length of stay.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this cohort of 131 patients, 38 underwent laparoscopic colectomy and 93 patients underwent robotic colectomy. There were no significant differences between rate of reoperation (7.7% vs 2.1%, <i>P </i>=<i> </i>.42), complications (5.1% vs 8.4%, <i>P </i>=<i> </i>.52), conversion to open (5.1% vs 2.1%, <i>P </i>=<i> </i>.25), days until return of bowel function (1.87 vs 2.01, <i>P </i>=<i> </i>.41), or length of stay (5.2 vs 5.2, <i>P </i>=<i> </i>.92). There were significant differences in operative time and estimated blood loss. Robotic approach was 128.11 minutes longer (β = 128.11, SE = 12, <i>p </i><<i> </i>.001) and had 33.4 cc less estimated blood loss (β = -33.4, SE = 16.6, <i>P </i>=<i> </i>.046), when adjusting for other confounders.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic sigmoid colectomy for complicated diverticulitis had mostly equivalent outcomes at this institution. There was some decrease in estimated blood loss, however, operative time was increased in the robotic group.</p>","PeriodicalId":17679,"journal":{"name":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11967722/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2024.00079","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Minimally invasive surgical techniques for colorectal surgery have continued to grow in prevalence with robotic surgery potentially providing advantages in complex pelvic operations. We sought to examine the outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic elective sigmoid colon resection for complicated diverticulitis.

Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients at an academic tertiary care center from 2018-2023 who underwent elective minimally invasive sigmoid colon resections for complicated diverticulitis. Multiple regression analysis was performed with primary outcomes being reoperation within 30 days and overall complications. Secondary outcomes included conversion to open, estimated blood loss, operative time, days until return of bowel function, and length of stay.

Results: In this cohort of 131 patients, 38 underwent laparoscopic colectomy and 93 patients underwent robotic colectomy. There were no significant differences between rate of reoperation (7.7% vs 2.1%, P =.42), complications (5.1% vs 8.4%, P =.52), conversion to open (5.1% vs 2.1%, P =.25), days until return of bowel function (1.87 vs 2.01, P =.41), or length of stay (5.2 vs 5.2, P =.92). There were significant differences in operative time and estimated blood loss. Robotic approach was 128.11 minutes longer (β = 128.11, SE = 12, p <.001) and had 33.4 cc less estimated blood loss (β = -33.4, SE = 16.6, P =.046), when adjusting for other confounders.

Conclusion: Robotic sigmoid colectomy for complicated diverticulitis had mostly equivalent outcomes at this institution. There was some decrease in estimated blood loss, however, operative time was increased in the robotic group.

腹腔镜与机器人选择性乙状结肠切除术治疗复杂性憩室炎。
目的:结肠直肠手术的微创手术技术持续增长,机器人手术可能在复杂的骨盆手术中提供优势。我们试图检查腹腔镜与机器人选择性乙状结肠切除术治疗复杂性憩室炎的结果。方法:我们对2018-2023年在一家学术三级医疗中心接受选择性微创乙状结肠切除术治疗复杂性憩室炎的患者进行了回顾性研究。以30天内再手术和总并发症为主要结果进行多元回归分析。次要结局包括转开腹、估计失血量、手术时间、肠功能恢复天数和住院时间。结果:在131例患者中,38例患者接受了腹腔镜结肠切除术,93例患者接受了机器人结肠切除术。再手术率(7.7% vs 2.1%, P = 0.42)、并发症(5.1% vs 8.4%, P = 0.52)、中转开腹(5.1% vs 2.1%, P = 0.25)、肠功能恢复天数(1.87 vs 2.01, P = 0.41)或住院时间(5.2 vs 5.2, P = 0.92)之间无显著差异。两组在手术时间和估计失血量上有显著差异。在调整其他混杂因素后,机器人方法延长了128.11分钟(β = 128.11, SE = 12, p .001),估计失血量减少了33.4 cc (β = -33.4, SE = 16.6, p = 0.046)。结论:机器人乙状结肠切除术治疗复杂性憩室炎的效果基本相同。估计失血量有所减少,然而,机器人组的手术时间有所增加。
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
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
69
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons publishes original scientific articles on basic science and technical topics in all the fields involved with laparoscopic, robotic, and minimally invasive surgery. CRSLS, MIS Case Reports from SLS is dedicated to the publication of Case Reports in the field of minimally invasive surgery. The journals seek to advance our understandings and practice of minimally invasive, image-guided surgery by providing a forum for all relevant disciplines and by promoting the exchange of information and ideas across specialties.
×
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