机器人平台对重复肝切除术的影响:临床结果的倾向评分匹配研究。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Updates in Surgery Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-13 DOI:10.1007/s13304-025-02117-0
Bhavya Bansal, Tara M Pattilachan, Sharona Ross, Maria Christodoulou, Iswanto Sucandy
{"title":"机器人平台对重复肝切除术的影响:临床结果的倾向评分匹配研究。","authors":"Bhavya Bansal, Tara M Pattilachan, Sharona Ross, Maria Christodoulou, Iswanto Sucandy","doi":"10.1007/s13304-025-02117-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Robotic surgical approaches have demonstrated improved outcomes in primary hepatectomies. However, data on their effectiveness in redo hepatectomies (subsequent liver resections) are limited. This study aims to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing primary and redo robotic hepatectomies, with additional analysis comparing outcomes of robotic versus open redo hepatectomies. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 101 patients from a parent population of 465, who were classified as either primary (non-redo) or redo robotic hepatectomy patients between 2013 and 2023. A Propensity Score Matched (PSM) analysis was conducted to compare perioperative variables between the two cohorts, using age, sex, BMI, IWATE score, tumor size, and tumor type as matching variables. Data are presented as median (mean ± standard deviation). Significance was accepted at p ≤ 0.05. After 3:1 PSM analysis (3 primary patients to 1 robotic redo patient), no significant differences were observed in pre-, intra-, or postoperative variables, except for the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (p = 0.022). Additional analysis comparing robotic and open redo hepatectomies showed similar perioperative outcomes, with the robotic approach demonstrating comparable safety and feasibility. Length of stay, blood loss, operative duration, morbidity, and mortality showed no significant differences between the two groups. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ III) occurred in 4% of non-redo patients, with none observed in the redo group. The findings suggest that patients undergoing redo robotic hepatectomies achieve outcomes comparable to those of primary hepatectomy patients. This indicates the potential of robotic platforms to mitigate the added complexities and risks associated with redo hepatectomies. Further multi-center collaboration is necessary to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":23391,"journal":{"name":"Updates in Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"447-454"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implications of robotic platforms for repeat hepatectomies: a propensity score matched study of clinical outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Bhavya Bansal, Tara M Pattilachan, Sharona Ross, Maria Christodoulou, Iswanto Sucandy\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13304-025-02117-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Robotic surgical approaches have demonstrated improved outcomes in primary hepatectomies. However, data on their effectiveness in redo hepatectomies (subsequent liver resections) are limited. This study aims to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing primary and redo robotic hepatectomies, with additional analysis comparing outcomes of robotic versus open redo hepatectomies. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 101 patients from a parent population of 465, who were classified as either primary (non-redo) or redo robotic hepatectomy patients between 2013 and 2023. A Propensity Score Matched (PSM) analysis was conducted to compare perioperative variables between the two cohorts, using age, sex, BMI, IWATE score, tumor size, and tumor type as matching variables. Data are presented as median (mean ± standard deviation). Significance was accepted at p ≤ 0.05. After 3:1 PSM analysis (3 primary patients to 1 robotic redo patient), no significant differences were observed in pre-, intra-, or postoperative variables, except for the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (p = 0.022). Additional analysis comparing robotic and open redo hepatectomies showed similar perioperative outcomes, with the robotic approach demonstrating comparable safety and feasibility. Length of stay, blood loss, operative duration, morbidity, and mortality showed no significant differences between the two groups. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ III) occurred in 4% of non-redo patients, with none observed in the redo group. The findings suggest that patients undergoing redo robotic hepatectomies achieve outcomes comparable to those of primary hepatectomy patients. This indicates the potential of robotic platforms to mitigate the added complexities and risks associated with redo hepatectomies. Further multi-center collaboration is necessary to validate these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23391,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Updates in Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"447-454\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Updates in Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02117-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Updates in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02117-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

机器人手术方法已经证明原发性肝切除术的效果有所改善。然而,关于它们在重做肝切除术(随后的肝切除术)中的有效性的数据有限。本研究的目的是比较初次和重做机器人肝切除术患者的结果,并对机器人肝切除术和开放式肝切除术的结果进行分析比较。在获得IRB批准后,我们对来自465名父母人群的101名患者进行了前瞻性随访,这些患者在2013年至2023年间被分类为原发性(非重做)或重做机器人肝切除术患者。采用年龄、性别、BMI、IWATE评分、肿瘤大小和肿瘤类型作为匹配变量,进行倾向评分匹配(PSM)分析,比较两组患者围手术期变量。数据以中位数(平均值±标准差)表示。p≤0.05为显著性。在3:1 PSM分析(3名原发患者对1名机器人重做患者)后,除了终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分(p = 0.022)外,在术前、术中或术后变量中均未观察到显著差异。另一项比较机器人和开放式重做肝切除术的分析显示围手术期结果相似,机器人方法显示出相当的安全性和可行性。两组患者的住院时间、出血量、手术时间、发病率和死亡率无显著差异。4%的非重做患者出现主要并发症(Clavien-Dindo评分≥III),而重做组中未观察到任何并发症。研究结果表明,再次接受机器人肝切除术的患者与原发性肝切除术患者的预后相当。这表明机器人平台有可能减轻重做肝切除术带来的复杂性和风险。进一步的多中心合作是验证这些发现的必要条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Implications of robotic platforms for repeat hepatectomies: a propensity score matched study of clinical outcomes.

Robotic surgical approaches have demonstrated improved outcomes in primary hepatectomies. However, data on their effectiveness in redo hepatectomies (subsequent liver resections) are limited. This study aims to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing primary and redo robotic hepatectomies, with additional analysis comparing outcomes of robotic versus open redo hepatectomies. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 101 patients from a parent population of 465, who were classified as either primary (non-redo) or redo robotic hepatectomy patients between 2013 and 2023. A Propensity Score Matched (PSM) analysis was conducted to compare perioperative variables between the two cohorts, using age, sex, BMI, IWATE score, tumor size, and tumor type as matching variables. Data are presented as median (mean ± standard deviation). Significance was accepted at p ≤ 0.05. After 3:1 PSM analysis (3 primary patients to 1 robotic redo patient), no significant differences were observed in pre-, intra-, or postoperative variables, except for the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (p = 0.022). Additional analysis comparing robotic and open redo hepatectomies showed similar perioperative outcomes, with the robotic approach demonstrating comparable safety and feasibility. Length of stay, blood loss, operative duration, morbidity, and mortality showed no significant differences between the two groups. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ III) occurred in 4% of non-redo patients, with none observed in the redo group. The findings suggest that patients undergoing redo robotic hepatectomies achieve outcomes comparable to those of primary hepatectomy patients. This indicates the potential of robotic platforms to mitigate the added complexities and risks associated with redo hepatectomies. Further multi-center collaboration is necessary to validate these findings.

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
Updates in Surgery
Updates in Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
208
期刊介绍: Updates in Surgery (UPIS) has been founded in 2010 as the official journal of the Italian Society of Surgery. It’s an international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the surgical sciences. Its main goal is to offer a valuable update on the most recent developments of those surgical techniques that are rapidly evolving, forcing the community of surgeons to a rigorous debate and a continuous refinement of standards of care. In this respect position papers on the mostly debated surgical approaches and accreditation criteria have been published and are welcome for the future. Beside its focus on general surgery, the journal draws particular attention to cutting edge topics and emerging surgical fields that are publishing in monothematic issues guest edited by well-known experts. Updates in Surgery has been considering various types of papers: editorials, comprehensive reviews, original studies and technical notes related to specific surgical procedures and techniques on liver, colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, robotic and bariatric surgery.
×
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