机器人手术中采用无结组织控制装置的趋势。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Barbara H Johnson, Sinchana T, Stephen S Johnston, Najmuddin Gunja
{"title":"机器人手术中采用无结组织控制装置的趋势。","authors":"Barbara H Johnson, Sinchana T, Stephen S Johnston, Najmuddin Gunja","doi":"10.57264/cer-2024-0229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Trends in the use and comparative outcomes for barbed and conventional sutures have not been well-reported for robotic surgery. <b>Materials & methods:</b> This retrospective study used hospital discharge data in the US to assess suture use during robotic colorectal surgery (CR), total hysterectomy (TH) and ventral hernia repair (VHR) performed between 1 October 2015 and 30 June 2022. We first examined quarterly trends in use of barbed sutures, (specifically STRATAFIX™ knotless tissue control devices [KTCD]) and then compared clinical and economic outcomes between KTCD and conventional sutures. Outcomes included wound-related complications (infection/wound dehiscence) through 90 days post discharge, operating room (OR) time, hospital costs and 30/60/90 days readmissions. Propensity score weighting was used to address potential confounding in the comparisons of outcomes, performed separately for each procedure. Generalized linear models, accounting for hospital-level clustering, with link functions and error distributions tailored to the empirical distribution of outcomes were used to test for statistically significant differences in outcomes between the KTCD and conventional suture cohorts. <b>Results:</b> We identified 15,875 patients with CR (668 KTCD), 175,963 patients with TH (15,075 KTCD) and 32,469 patients with VHR (6776 KTCD). Over the study period, the proportion of robotic surgeries using KTCD tripled for CR (2.0-6.4%) and TH (2.9-10.4%) and more than doubled for VHR (12.2-25.3%). Compared with conventional sutures, KTCD was associated with significantly shorter OR time for TH (-19.1 min, 95% CI: [-30.2, -8.0]) and VHR (-17.3 min, 95% CI: [-31.4, -3.2]), and was numerically shorter, but did not reach statistical significance for CR (-23.2 min 95% CI: [-48.1 to 1.7]). All other outcomes were similar between the two suture cohorts for all procedures, apart from CR 90-day readmissions, which were lower for the KTCD cohort (-2.8%, 95% CI: [-5.2 to -0.4%]). <b>Conclusion:</b> Adoption of KTCD has grown substantially over the past 6 years. While most clinical and economic outcomes were similar between the two groups, KTCD was associated with lower OR time versus conventional sutures for TH and VHR and lower 90-day readmissions for CR.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":" ","pages":"e240229"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11963344/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trends in adoption of knotless tissue control devices in robotic surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Barbara H Johnson, Sinchana T, Stephen S Johnston, Najmuddin Gunja\",\"doi\":\"10.57264/cer-2024-0229\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Trends in the use and comparative outcomes for barbed and conventional sutures have not been well-reported for robotic surgery. <b>Materials & methods:</b> This retrospective study used hospital discharge data in the US to assess suture use during robotic colorectal surgery (CR), total hysterectomy (TH) and ventral hernia repair (VHR) performed between 1 October 2015 and 30 June 2022. We first examined quarterly trends in use of barbed sutures, (specifically STRATAFIX™ knotless tissue control devices [KTCD]) and then compared clinical and economic outcomes between KTCD and conventional sutures. Outcomes included wound-related complications (infection/wound dehiscence) through 90 days post discharge, operating room (OR) time, hospital costs and 30/60/90 days readmissions. Propensity score weighting was used to address potential confounding in the comparisons of outcomes, performed separately for each procedure. Generalized linear models, accounting for hospital-level clustering, with link functions and error distributions tailored to the empirical distribution of outcomes were used to test for statistically significant differences in outcomes between the KTCD and conventional suture cohorts. <b>Results:</b> We identified 15,875 patients with CR (668 KTCD), 175,963 patients with TH (15,075 KTCD) and 32,469 patients with VHR (6776 KTCD). Over the study period, the proportion of robotic surgeries using KTCD tripled for CR (2.0-6.4%) and TH (2.9-10.4%) and more than doubled for VHR (12.2-25.3%). Compared with conventional sutures, KTCD was associated with significantly shorter OR time for TH (-19.1 min, 95% CI: [-30.2, -8.0]) and VHR (-17.3 min, 95% CI: [-31.4, -3.2]), and was numerically shorter, but did not reach statistical significance for CR (-23.2 min 95% CI: [-48.1 to 1.7]). All other outcomes were similar between the two suture cohorts for all procedures, apart from CR 90-day readmissions, which were lower for the KTCD cohort (-2.8%, 95% CI: [-5.2 to -0.4%]). <b>Conclusion:</b> Adoption of KTCD has grown substantially over the past 6 years. While most clinical and economic outcomes were similar between the two groups, KTCD was associated with lower OR time versus conventional sutures for TH and VHR and lower 90-day readmissions for CR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e240229\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11963344/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0229\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0229","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在机器人手术中,倒钩缝合线和传统缝合线的使用趋势和比较结果尚未得到很好的报道。材料与方法:本回顾性研究使用美国医院出院数据,评估2015年10月1日至2022年6月30日期间机器人结肠直肠手术(CR)、全子宫切除术(TH)和腹疝修补术(VHR)期间缝线的使用情况。我们首先研究了有刺缝线(特别是STRATAFIX™无结组织控制装置[KTCD])使用的季度趋势,然后比较了KTCD和传统缝线的临床和经济效果。结果包括出院后90天的伤口相关并发症(感染/伤口裂开)、手术室(OR)时间、住院费用和30/60/90天的再入院。倾向评分加权用于解决结果比较中潜在的混淆,分别对每个程序进行。采用考虑医院级聚类的广义线性模型,以及针对结果的经验分布定制的关联函数和误差分布,来检验KTCD和传统缝合队列之间结果的统计学显著差异。结果:我们确定了15875例CR(668例KTCD), 175963例TH(15075例KTCD)和32469例VHR(6776例KTCD)。在研究期间,使用KTCD的机器人手术比例在CR(2.0-6.4%)和TH(2.9-10.4%)中增加了两倍,在VHR(12.2-25.3%)中增加了一倍多。与传统缝线相比,KTCD与TH (-19.1 min, 95% CI:[-30.2, -8.0])和VHR (-17.3 min, 95% CI:[-31.4, -3.2])的OR时间显著缩短相关,在数值上更短,但与CR (-23.2 min, 95% CI:[-48.1至1.7])的OR时间无统计学意义。除了CR 90天再入院率较低(-2.8%,95% CI:[-5.2至-0.4%])外,两个缝合组之间所有手术的所有其他结果相似。结论:在过去的6年里,KTCD的采用有了显著的增长。虽然两组之间的大多数临床和经济结果相似,但与传统的TH和VHR缝合相比,KTCD与更短的OR时间和更短的90天CR再入院有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Trends in adoption of knotless tissue control devices in robotic surgery.

Aim: Trends in the use and comparative outcomes for barbed and conventional sutures have not been well-reported for robotic surgery. Materials & methods: This retrospective study used hospital discharge data in the US to assess suture use during robotic colorectal surgery (CR), total hysterectomy (TH) and ventral hernia repair (VHR) performed between 1 October 2015 and 30 June 2022. We first examined quarterly trends in use of barbed sutures, (specifically STRATAFIX™ knotless tissue control devices [KTCD]) and then compared clinical and economic outcomes between KTCD and conventional sutures. Outcomes included wound-related complications (infection/wound dehiscence) through 90 days post discharge, operating room (OR) time, hospital costs and 30/60/90 days readmissions. Propensity score weighting was used to address potential confounding in the comparisons of outcomes, performed separately for each procedure. Generalized linear models, accounting for hospital-level clustering, with link functions and error distributions tailored to the empirical distribution of outcomes were used to test for statistically significant differences in outcomes between the KTCD and conventional suture cohorts. Results: We identified 15,875 patients with CR (668 KTCD), 175,963 patients with TH (15,075 KTCD) and 32,469 patients with VHR (6776 KTCD). Over the study period, the proportion of robotic surgeries using KTCD tripled for CR (2.0-6.4%) and TH (2.9-10.4%) and more than doubled for VHR (12.2-25.3%). Compared with conventional sutures, KTCD was associated with significantly shorter OR time for TH (-19.1 min, 95% CI: [-30.2, -8.0]) and VHR (-17.3 min, 95% CI: [-31.4, -3.2]), and was numerically shorter, but did not reach statistical significance for CR (-23.2 min 95% CI: [-48.1 to 1.7]). All other outcomes were similar between the two suture cohorts for all procedures, apart from CR 90-day readmissions, which were lower for the KTCD cohort (-2.8%, 95% CI: [-5.2 to -0.4%]). Conclusion: Adoption of KTCD has grown substantially over the past 6 years. While most clinical and economic outcomes were similar between the two groups, KTCD was associated with lower OR time versus conventional sutures for TH and VHR and lower 90-day readmissions for CR.

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
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Journal of comparative effectiveness research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies. Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.
×
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