评估穿透性克罗恩病的机器人辅助手术与开放式手术:回肠结肠切除术的优势和疗效。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
T Violante, D Ferrari, A Sileo, R Sassun, J C Ng, K L Mathis, N P McKenna, K K Rumer, D W Larson
{"title":"评估穿透性克罗恩病的机器人辅助手术与开放式手术:回肠结肠切除术的优势和疗效。","authors":"T Violante, D Ferrari, A Sileo, R Sassun, J C Ng, K L Mathis, N P McKenna, K K Rumer, D W Larson","doi":"10.1007/s10151-024-02985-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Penetrating Crohn's disease (CD) often necessitates surgical intervention, with the open approach traditionally favored. Robotic-assisted surgery offers potential benefits but remains understudied in this complex patient population. Additionally, the lack of standardized surgical complexity scoring in CD hinders research and comparisons.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed adult patients with penetrating CD who underwent either robotic-assisted ileocolic resection (RICR) or open ileocolic resection (OICR) at our institution from January 2007 to December 2021. We assessed endpoints, including length of stay, complications, readmissions, reoperations, and other perioperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>RICR demonstrated safety outcomes comparable to OICR. Importantly, RICR patients experienced significantly reduced estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001), shorter hospital stays (median 4.5 days versus 6.9 days; p = 0.01), lower surgical site infection rates (0% versus 15.4%; p = 0.01), and decreased 30-day readmission rates (0% versus 15.4%; p = 0.01). Linear regression analysis revealed the need for additional strictureplasties (coefficient: 84.8; p = 0.008), colonic resections (coefficient: 41.7; p = 0.008), and estimated blood loss (coefficient: 0.07; p = 0.002) independently correlated with longer operative times).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic-assisted surgery appears to be a safe and potentially beneficial alternative for the surgical management of penetrating CD, offering advantages in perioperative outcomes reducing length of stay, blood loss, surgical site infection rates, and readmission rates. Further validation with larger cohorts is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":51192,"journal":{"name":"Techniques in Coloproctology","volume":"28 1","pages":"112"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing robotic-assisted surgery versus open approach in penetrating Crohn's disease: advantages and outcomes in ileocolic resection.\",\"authors\":\"T Violante, D Ferrari, A Sileo, R Sassun, J C Ng, K L Mathis, N P McKenna, K K Rumer, D W Larson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10151-024-02985-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Penetrating Crohn's disease (CD) often necessitates surgical intervention, with the open approach traditionally favored. Robotic-assisted surgery offers potential benefits but remains understudied in this complex patient population. Additionally, the lack of standardized surgical complexity scoring in CD hinders research and comparisons.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed adult patients with penetrating CD who underwent either robotic-assisted ileocolic resection (RICR) or open ileocolic resection (OICR) at our institution from January 2007 to December 2021. We assessed endpoints, including length of stay, complications, readmissions, reoperations, and other perioperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>RICR demonstrated safety outcomes comparable to OICR. Importantly, RICR patients experienced significantly reduced estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001), shorter hospital stays (median 4.5 days versus 6.9 days; p = 0.01), lower surgical site infection rates (0% versus 15.4%; p = 0.01), and decreased 30-day readmission rates (0% versus 15.4%; p = 0.01). Linear regression analysis revealed the need for additional strictureplasties (coefficient: 84.8; p = 0.008), colonic resections (coefficient: 41.7; p = 0.008), and estimated blood loss (coefficient: 0.07; p = 0.002) independently correlated with longer operative times).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic-assisted surgery appears to be a safe and potentially beneficial alternative for the surgical management of penetrating CD, offering advantages in perioperative outcomes reducing length of stay, blood loss, surgical site infection rates, and readmission rates. Further validation with larger cohorts is warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51192,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Techniques in Coloproctology\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"112\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Techniques in Coloproctology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-024-02985-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techniques in Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-024-02985-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:穿透性克罗恩病(CD)通常需要手术干预,传统上多采用开腹手术。机器人辅助手术具有潜在的优势,但在这一复杂的患者群体中仍未得到充分研究。此外,缺乏标准化的 CD 手术复杂性评分也阻碍了研究和比较:我们回顾性分析了2007年1月至2021年12月在本院接受机器人辅助回肠结肠切除术(RICR)或开放式回肠结肠切除术(OICR)的穿透性CD成人患者。我们评估的终点包括住院时间、并发症、再入院、再次手术和其他围手术期结果:结果:RICR 的安全性与 OICR 相当。重要的是,RICR 患者的估计失血量明显减少(p 结论:机器人辅助手术的安全性似乎与 OICR 相当:机器人辅助手术似乎是穿透性 CD 手术治疗的一种安全且可能有益的替代方法,在围手术期结果方面具有优势,可缩短住院时间、减少失血量、降低手术部位感染率和再入院率。有必要通过更大规模的队列进行进一步验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing robotic-assisted surgery versus open approach in penetrating Crohn's disease: advantages and outcomes in ileocolic resection.

Introduction: Penetrating Crohn's disease (CD) often necessitates surgical intervention, with the open approach traditionally favored. Robotic-assisted surgery offers potential benefits but remains understudied in this complex patient population. Additionally, the lack of standardized surgical complexity scoring in CD hinders research and comparisons.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed adult patients with penetrating CD who underwent either robotic-assisted ileocolic resection (RICR) or open ileocolic resection (OICR) at our institution from January 2007 to December 2021. We assessed endpoints, including length of stay, complications, readmissions, reoperations, and other perioperative outcomes.

Results: RICR demonstrated safety outcomes comparable to OICR. Importantly, RICR patients experienced significantly reduced estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001), shorter hospital stays (median 4.5 days versus 6.9 days; p = 0.01), lower surgical site infection rates (0% versus 15.4%; p = 0.01), and decreased 30-day readmission rates (0% versus 15.4%; p = 0.01). Linear regression analysis revealed the need for additional strictureplasties (coefficient: 84.8; p = 0.008), colonic resections (coefficient: 41.7; p = 0.008), and estimated blood loss (coefficient: 0.07; p = 0.002) independently correlated with longer operative times).

Conclusion: Robotic-assisted surgery appears to be a safe and potentially beneficial alternative for the surgical management of penetrating CD, offering advantages in perioperative outcomes reducing length of stay, blood loss, surgical site infection rates, and readmission rates. Further validation with larger cohorts is warranted.

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
Techniques in Coloproctology
Techniques in Coloproctology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
176
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Techniques in Coloproctology is an international journal fully devoted to diagnostic and operative procedures carried out in the management of colorectal diseases. Imaging, clinical physiology, laparoscopy, open abdominal surgery and proctoperineology are the main topics covered by the journal. Reviews, original articles, technical notes and short communications with many detailed illustrations render this publication indispensable for coloproctologists and related specialists. Both surgeons and gastroenterologists are represented on the distinguished Editorial Board, together with pathologists, radiologists and basic scientists from all over the world. The journal is strongly recommended to those who wish to be updated on recent developments in the field, and improve the standards of their work. Manuscripts submitted for publication must contain a statement to the effect that all human studies have been reviewed by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in an appropriate version of the 1965 Declaration of Helsinki. It should also be stated clearly in the text that all persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study should be omitted. Reports of animal experiments must state that the Principles of Laboratory Animal Care (NIH publication no. 86-23 revised 1985) were followed as were applicable national laws (e.g. the current version of the German Law on the Protection of Animals). The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. Authors will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill such requirements.
×
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