腹腔镜和机器人胆囊切除术的对比分析:多医院回顾性研究

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Marvin A Rhodes, Javier Otero, Summer N Rochester, Dawn W Blackhurst, Andrew M Schneider
{"title":"腹腔镜和机器人胆囊切除术的对比分析:多医院回顾性研究","authors":"Marvin A Rhodes, Javier Otero, Summer N Rochester, Dawn W Blackhurst, Andrew M Schneider","doi":"10.4293/JSLS.2024.00068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has remained the gold standard approach for gallbladder surgery for nearly 3 decades. However, adoption of robotics for treatment of gallbladder disease continues to grow. Despite this growth, clinical outcomes regarding laparoscopic versus robotic cholecystectomy remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a multihospital retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent cholecystectomy between August 1, 2021 and November 30, 2023. We compared demographic and clinical characteristics, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic groups. The postoperative outcomes analyzed included conversion to open, bile leak, major duct injury, return to the operating room, surgical site infection, blood transfusion, readmission, and death. The overall complication rate included any of these outcomes. Statistical analysis included χ<sup>2</sup> tests, <i>t</i>-tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and multivariable logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 4,316 patients were analyzed (3,736 laparoscopic, 580 robotic). In bivariate analyses, robotic surgery was associated with lower rates of conversion to open (<i>P</i> = .019), bleeding requiring transfusion (<i>P</i> = .017), and overall complications (2.9% vs 5.5%), respectively (<i>P</i> = .009). Robotic approach was associated with a 5 minute longer average surgery time (<i>P</i> = .002). Using multivariable logistic regression analysis to account for preoperative differences between the groups, robotic surgery was associated with a 62% decreased risk of any complication (odds ratio [OR] = 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.20, 0.74]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic cholecystectomy demonstrates favorable clinical outcomes compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These findings support the advantages of robotic assistance during cholecystectomy. To our knowledge, this represents one of the largest retrospective studies showing a clinical benefit from the robotic approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":17679,"journal":{"name":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11967723/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis of Laparoscopic and Robotic Cholecystectomy: A Multihospital Retrospective Study.\",\"authors\":\"Marvin A Rhodes, Javier Otero, Summer N Rochester, Dawn W Blackhurst, Andrew M Schneider\",\"doi\":\"10.4293/JSLS.2024.00068\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has remained the gold standard approach for gallbladder surgery for nearly 3 decades. However, adoption of robotics for treatment of gallbladder disease continues to grow. Despite this growth, clinical outcomes regarding laparoscopic versus robotic cholecystectomy remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a multihospital retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent cholecystectomy between August 1, 2021 and November 30, 2023. We compared demographic and clinical characteristics, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic groups. The postoperative outcomes analyzed included conversion to open, bile leak, major duct injury, return to the operating room, surgical site infection, blood transfusion, readmission, and death. The overall complication rate included any of these outcomes. Statistical analysis included χ<sup>2</sup> tests, <i>t</i>-tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and multivariable logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 4,316 patients were analyzed (3,736 laparoscopic, 580 robotic). In bivariate analyses, robotic surgery was associated with lower rates of conversion to open (<i>P</i> = .019), bleeding requiring transfusion (<i>P</i> = .017), and overall complications (2.9% vs 5.5%), respectively (<i>P</i> = .009). Robotic approach was associated with a 5 minute longer average surgery time (<i>P</i> = .002). Using multivariable logistic regression analysis to account for preoperative differences between the groups, robotic surgery was associated with a 62% decreased risk of any complication (odds ratio [OR] = 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.20, 0.74]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic cholecystectomy demonstrates favorable clinical outcomes compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These findings support the advantages of robotic assistance during cholecystectomy. To our knowledge, this represents one of the largest retrospective studies showing a clinical benefit from the robotic approach.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11967723/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2024.00068\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2024.00068","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:近 30 年来,腹腔镜胆囊切除术一直是胆囊手术的金标准方法。然而,采用机器人技术治疗胆囊疾病的患者在不断增加。尽管如此,腹腔镜胆囊切除术与机器人胆囊切除术的临床结果仍不明确:我们对 2021 年 8 月 1 日至 2023 年 11 月 30 日期间接受胆囊切除术的患者进行了一项多医院回顾性队列研究。我们比较了腹腔镜组和机器人组的人口统计学和临床特征、手术细节和术后结果。分析的术后结果包括转为开腹手术、胆汁漏、主要管道损伤、返回手术室、手术部位感染、输血、再次入院和死亡。总体并发症发生率包括上述任何一种结果。统计分析包括χ2检验、t检验、Wilcoxon秩和检验和多变量逻辑回归:共分析了4316名患者(3736名腹腔镜患者,580名机器人患者)。在双变量分析中,机器人手术分别与较低的开腹手术转换率(P = .019)、需要输血的出血率(P = .017)和总体并发症发生率(2.9% vs 5.5%)相关(P = .009)。机器人手术的平均手术时间延长了 5 分钟(P = .002)。通过多变量逻辑回归分析来考虑两组患者术前的差异,机器人手术发生任何并发症的风险降低了62%(几率比[OR] = 0.38,95%置信区间[CI] [0.20, 0.74]):结论:与腹腔镜胆囊切除术相比,机器人胆囊切除术具有良好的临床效果。这些研究结果支持了机器人辅助胆囊切除术的优势。据我们所知,这是显示机器人方法临床获益的最大回顾性研究之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Analysis of Laparoscopic and Robotic Cholecystectomy: A Multihospital Retrospective Study.

Background and objectives: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has remained the gold standard approach for gallbladder surgery for nearly 3 decades. However, adoption of robotics for treatment of gallbladder disease continues to grow. Despite this growth, clinical outcomes regarding laparoscopic versus robotic cholecystectomy remain unclear.

Methods: We conducted a multihospital retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent cholecystectomy between August 1, 2021 and November 30, 2023. We compared demographic and clinical characteristics, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic groups. The postoperative outcomes analyzed included conversion to open, bile leak, major duct injury, return to the operating room, surgical site infection, blood transfusion, readmission, and death. The overall complication rate included any of these outcomes. Statistical analysis included χ2 tests, t-tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and multivariable logistic regression.

Results: A total of 4,316 patients were analyzed (3,736 laparoscopic, 580 robotic). In bivariate analyses, robotic surgery was associated with lower rates of conversion to open (P = .019), bleeding requiring transfusion (P = .017), and overall complications (2.9% vs 5.5%), respectively (P = .009). Robotic approach was associated with a 5 minute longer average surgery time (P = .002). Using multivariable logistic regression analysis to account for preoperative differences between the groups, robotic surgery was associated with a 62% decreased risk of any complication (odds ratio [OR] = 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.20, 0.74]).

Conclusion: Robotic cholecystectomy demonstrates favorable clinical outcomes compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These findings support the advantages of robotic assistance during cholecystectomy. To our knowledge, this represents one of the largest retrospective studies showing a clinical benefit from the robotic approach.

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
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
69
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons publishes original scientific articles on basic science and technical topics in all the fields involved with laparoscopic, robotic, and minimally invasive surgery. CRSLS, MIS Case Reports from SLS is dedicated to the publication of Case Reports in the field of minimally invasive surgery. The journals seek to advance our understandings and practice of minimally invasive, image-guided surgery by providing a forum for all relevant disciplines and by promoting the exchange of information and ideas across specialties.
×
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