Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE) vs. Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (MIE) for Esophageal Cancer: A Nationwide Inpatient Sample Analysis from 2017 to 2020.

Weizhong Ruan, Yibin Cai, Weisheng Chen
{"title":"Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE) vs. Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (MIE) for Esophageal Cancer: A Nationwide Inpatient Sample Analysis from 2017 to 2020.","authors":"Weizhong Ruan, Yibin Cai, Weisheng Chen","doi":"10.5761/atcs.oa.25-00017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study compared the short-term outcomes after conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) vs. robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE)s by analyzing national data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected from adults aged ≥20 years who underwent MIE from 2017 to 2020, from the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. The outcomes included in-hospital mortality, unfavorable discharges, prolonged length of stays (LOS), total hospital charge, and various complications. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to balance the baseline characteristics between RAMIE and conventional MIE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After PSM, 628 patients (representing 3140 patients in the US after weighting) were analyzed. After adjustment, multivariable analysis revealed no significant differences between RAMIE and traditional MIE in terms of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odd ratio [aOR] =1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-4.61), unfavorable discharge (aOR = 0.76, 95%CI: 0.41-1.41), prolonged LOS (aOR = 0.87, 95%CI: 0.60-1.26), total hospital charge (aBeta = 12.23, 95%CI: -19.24 to 43.69), or complications (aOR = 1.05, 95%CI: 0.78-1.41). Stratified analysis indicated that, among obese patients, RAMIE was associated significantly with a higher risk of overall complications compared with MIE (aOR = 1.90, 95%CI: 1.11-3.25).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study found no significant differences in unfavorable discharge and prolonged LOS between RAMIE and traditional MIE. Nevertheless, obese patients undergoing RAMIE experienced higher complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":93877,"journal":{"name":"Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12104546/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5761/atcs.oa.25-00017","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

Purpose: This study compared the short-term outcomes after conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) vs. robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE)s by analyzing national data.

Methods: Data were collected from adults aged ≥20 years who underwent MIE from 2017 to 2020, from the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. The outcomes included in-hospital mortality, unfavorable discharges, prolonged length of stays (LOS), total hospital charge, and various complications. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to balance the baseline characteristics between RAMIE and conventional MIE.

Results: After PSM, 628 patients (representing 3140 patients in the US after weighting) were analyzed. After adjustment, multivariable analysis revealed no significant differences between RAMIE and traditional MIE in terms of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odd ratio [aOR] =1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-4.61), unfavorable discharge (aOR = 0.76, 95%CI: 0.41-1.41), prolonged LOS (aOR = 0.87, 95%CI: 0.60-1.26), total hospital charge (aBeta = 12.23, 95%CI: -19.24 to 43.69), or complications (aOR = 1.05, 95%CI: 0.78-1.41). Stratified analysis indicated that, among obese patients, RAMIE was associated significantly with a higher risk of overall complications compared with MIE (aOR = 1.90, 95%CI: 1.11-3.25).

Conclusions: The study found no significant differences in unfavorable discharge and prolonged LOS between RAMIE and traditional MIE. Nevertheless, obese patients undergoing RAMIE experienced higher complications.

机器人辅助微创食管切除术(RAMIE)与传统微创食管切除术(MIE)治疗食管癌:2017 - 2020年全国住院患者样本分析
目的:本研究通过分析国家数据,比较常规微创食管切除术(MIE)与机器人辅助微创食管切除术(RAMIE)术后的短期预后。方法:从美国全国住院患者样本数据库中收集2017年至2020年接受MIE治疗的年龄≥20岁的成年人的数据。结果包括住院死亡率、不良出院、延长住院时间(LOS)、总住院费用和各种并发症。采用倾向得分匹配(PSM)来平衡RAMIE和传统MIE之间的基线特征。结果:PSM后,628例患者(加权后代表美国的3140例患者)被分析。调整后,多变量分析显示RAMIE与传统MIE在住院死亡率(调整奇比[aOR] =1.45, 95%可信区间[CI]: 0.46 ~ 4.61)、不良出院(aOR = 0.76, 95%CI: 0.41 ~ 1.41)、延长住院时间(aOR = 0.87, 95%CI: 0.60 ~ 1.26)、总住院费用(aBeta = 12.23, 95%CI: -19.24 ~ 43.69)、并发症(aOR = 1.05, 95%CI: 0.78 ~ 1.41)方面无显著差异。分层分析显示,在肥胖患者中,与MIE相比,RAMIE与更高的总并发症风险显著相关(aOR = 1.90, 95%CI: 1.11-3.25)。结论:研究发现苎麻MIE与传统MIE在不良排出和延长的LOS方面无显著差异。然而,接受RAMIE手术的肥胖患者出现了更高的并发症。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信