非机器人腹腔镜与机器人腹腔镜腹部手术(LapRas)中CLP的风险因素:利用 LAS VEGAS 和 AVATaR 进行的患者层面分析得出的理由和方案

IF 0.9 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
{"title":"非机器人腹腔镜与机器人腹腔镜腹部手术(LapRas)中CLP的风险因素:利用 LAS VEGAS 和 AVATaR 进行的患者层面分析得出的理由和方案","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.redar.2024.01.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) vary in different surgical techniques. We aim to compare the incidence of PPCs after laparoscopic non-robotic versus laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and analysis</h3><div>LapRas (Risk Factors for PPCs in Laparoscopic Non-Robotic vs Laparoscopic Robotic Abdominal Surgery) analyses harmonized data from two observational studies on abdominal surgery patients and PPCs: Local ASsessment of VEntilatory management during General Anaesthesia for Surgery (LAS VEGAS), and Assessment of Ventilation during general AnesThesia for Robotic surgery (AVATaR). The primary endpoint is the occurrence of one or more PPC within the first five postoperative days. Secondary endpoints include the occurrence of each individual PPC, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. Logistic regression models will be used to identify risk factors for PPCs in laparoscopic non-robotic versus laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery. We will investigate whether differences in the occurrence of PPCs between the groups are driven by differences in duration of anaesthesia and/or the intensity of mechanical ventilation.</div></div><div><h3>Ethics and dissemination</h3><div>This analysis will address a clinically relevant research question by comparing laparoscopic and robotic surgery. No additional ethical committee approval is required for this meta-analysis. Data will be shared with the scientific community in the form of abstracts and original articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals.</div></div><div><h3>Registration</h3><div>The registration of this post-hoc analysis is pending; individual studies that were merged into the study database were registered at clinicaltrials.gov: LAS VEGAS with identifier <span><span>NCT01601223</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>, AVATaR with identifier <span><span>NCT02989415</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46479,"journal":{"name":"Revista Espanola de Anestesiologia y Reanimacion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factores de riesgo para PPC en cirugía abdominal laparoscópica no robótica frente a la laparoscópica robótica (LapRas): Razonamiento y protocolo mediante un análisis a nivel de paciente de LAS VEGAS y AVATaR\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.redar.2024.01.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) vary in different surgical techniques. We aim to compare the incidence of PPCs after laparoscopic non-robotic versus laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and analysis</h3><div>LapRas (Risk Factors for PPCs in Laparoscopic Non-Robotic vs Laparoscopic Robotic Abdominal Surgery) analyses harmonized data from two observational studies on abdominal surgery patients and PPCs: Local ASsessment of VEntilatory management during General Anaesthesia for Surgery (LAS VEGAS), and Assessment of Ventilation during general AnesThesia for Robotic surgery (AVATaR). The primary endpoint is the occurrence of one or more PPC within the first five postoperative days. Secondary endpoints include the occurrence of each individual PPC, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. Logistic regression models will be used to identify risk factors for PPCs in laparoscopic non-robotic versus laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery. We will investigate whether differences in the occurrence of PPCs between the groups are driven by differences in duration of anaesthesia and/or the intensity of mechanical ventilation.</div></div><div><h3>Ethics and dissemination</h3><div>This analysis will address a clinically relevant research question by comparing laparoscopic and robotic surgery. No additional ethical committee approval is required for this meta-analysis. Data will be shared with the scientific community in the form of abstracts and original articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals.</div></div><div><h3>Registration</h3><div>The registration of this post-hoc analysis is pending; individual studies that were merged into the study database were registered at clinicaltrials.gov: LAS VEGAS with identifier <span><span>NCT01601223</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>, AVATaR with identifier <span><span>NCT02989415</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46479,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Espanola de Anestesiologia y Reanimacion\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Espanola de Anestesiologia y Reanimacion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034935624000562\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Espanola de Anestesiologia y Reanimacion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034935624000562","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言术后肺部并发症(PPC)在不同的手术技术中有所不同。我们旨在比较腹腔镜非机器人腹部手术与腹腔镜机器人腹部手术后肺部并发症的发生率。方法和分析LapRas(腹腔镜非机器人腹部手术与腹腔镜机器人腹部手术中肺部并发症的风险因素)分析了两项腹部手术患者和肺部并发症观察性研究的统一数据:LAS VEGAS)和机器人手术全身麻醉期间通气评估(AVATaR)。主要终点是术后前五天内发生一种或多种 PPC。次要终点包括每种 PPC 的发生率、住院时间和院内死亡率。我们将使用逻辑回归模型来确定腹腔镜非机器人腹部手术与腹腔镜机器人腹部手术发生 PPC 的风险因素。我们将研究麻醉持续时间和/或机械通气强度的不同是否会导致两组间PPCs发生率的差异。伦理与传播这项分析将通过比较腹腔镜手术和机器人手术来解决临床相关的研究问题。这项荟萃分析无需获得伦理委员会的额外批准。数据将以摘要和原创文章的形式提交给同行评审期刊,与科学界共享。注册这项事后分析的注册工作尚未完成;合并到研究数据库中的单项研究已在 clinicaltrials.gov 注册:LAS VEGAS的标识符为NCT01601223,AVATaR的标识符为NCT02989415。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Factores de riesgo para PPC en cirugía abdominal laparoscópica no robótica frente a la laparoscópica robótica (LapRas): Razonamiento y protocolo mediante un análisis a nivel de paciente de LAS VEGAS y AVATaR

Introduction

Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) vary in different surgical techniques. We aim to compare the incidence of PPCs after laparoscopic non-robotic versus laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery.

Methods and analysis

LapRas (Risk Factors for PPCs in Laparoscopic Non-Robotic vs Laparoscopic Robotic Abdominal Surgery) analyses harmonized data from two observational studies on abdominal surgery patients and PPCs: Local ASsessment of VEntilatory management during General Anaesthesia for Surgery (LAS VEGAS), and Assessment of Ventilation during general AnesThesia for Robotic surgery (AVATaR). The primary endpoint is the occurrence of one or more PPC within the first five postoperative days. Secondary endpoints include the occurrence of each individual PPC, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. Logistic regression models will be used to identify risk factors for PPCs in laparoscopic non-robotic versus laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery. We will investigate whether differences in the occurrence of PPCs between the groups are driven by differences in duration of anaesthesia and/or the intensity of mechanical ventilation.

Ethics and dissemination

This analysis will address a clinically relevant research question by comparing laparoscopic and robotic surgery. No additional ethical committee approval is required for this meta-analysis. Data will be shared with the scientific community in the form of abstracts and original articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals.

Registration

The registration of this post-hoc analysis is pending; individual studies that were merged into the study database were registered at clinicaltrials.gov: LAS VEGAS with identifier NCT01601223, AVATaR with identifier NCT02989415.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
15.40%
发文量
113
审稿时长
82 days
×
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