机器人袖式胃切除术中吻合器的使用趋势、患者预后和资源利用。

IF 2.2 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2025-08-22 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CEOR.S525137
I-Wen Pan, Zasim Azhar Siddiqui
{"title":"机器人袖式胃切除术中吻合器的使用趋势、患者预后和资源利用。","authors":"I-Wen Pan, Zasim Azhar Siddiqui","doi":"10.2147/CEOR.S525137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Robotic platforms are commonly used for sleeve gastrectomy, despite the high capital costs and little understanding of the roles of platform-specific consumables and standard surgical alternatives in clinical outcomes and healthcare resource utilization. This study evaluates the trend, the effectiveness (outcomes) and efficiency (resource utilization) of different types of surgical staplers used in robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This was a retrospective observational cohort study analyzing data from the PINC AI™ Healthcare Data database. Patients were included if they underwent elective, inpatient, primary sleeve gastrectomy performed using the Intuitive Surgical robotic system (Sunnyvale, CA) with either a bedside stapler (BS, Signia™, Endo-GIA™, or Tri-staple™) or a robotic stapler (RS, Sureform™). The primary outcome measures included inpatient costs, complications, operating room time (ORT), length of stay (LOS), and intensive care unit visits. Outcomes were analyzed using bivariate analyses, multivariable generalized linear models (GLM), and propensity-score matching (PSM).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 18,892 total RSG procedures that met eligibility criteria, robotic staplers were used in 15,152 procedures (80.2%) and bedside staplers were used in 3740 (19.8%). While RSG increased dramatically during the period, RS were shown to be associated with a greater risk of blood transfusion compared to bedside staplers both in a GLM [0.5% (BS) vs 0.7% (RS); Odds ratio (OR): 1.55; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-2.36; p = 0.04] and after PSM [0.3% (BS) vs 0.9% (RS); OR: 3.02; 95% CI: 1.35-6.73; p = 0.007]. Bedside staplers were associated with total costs reduction [mean cost savings: $3084; 95% CI: $2860 - $3309; p < 0.001] and shorter ORT (21 minutes; 95% CI: 18.6-23.5; p < 0.001) compared to robotic staplers. Difference in LOS was not clinically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When used during RSG, bedside staplers are cost-saving, with equivalent or better clinical outcomes and reduced resource utilization compared to robotic staplers.</p>","PeriodicalId":47313,"journal":{"name":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","volume":"17 ","pages":"561-569"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12379977/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trends, Patient Outcomes, and Resource Utilization Associated with Surgical Staplers During Robotic Sleeve Gastrectomy.\",\"authors\":\"I-Wen Pan, Zasim Azhar Siddiqui\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/CEOR.S525137\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Robotic platforms are commonly used for sleeve gastrectomy, despite the high capital costs and little understanding of the roles of platform-specific consumables and standard surgical alternatives in clinical outcomes and healthcare resource utilization. This study evaluates the trend, the effectiveness (outcomes) and efficiency (resource utilization) of different types of surgical staplers used in robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This was a retrospective observational cohort study analyzing data from the PINC AI™ Healthcare Data database. Patients were included if they underwent elective, inpatient, primary sleeve gastrectomy performed using the Intuitive Surgical robotic system (Sunnyvale, CA) with either a bedside stapler (BS, Signia™, Endo-GIA™, or Tri-staple™) or a robotic stapler (RS, Sureform™). The primary outcome measures included inpatient costs, complications, operating room time (ORT), length of stay (LOS), and intensive care unit visits. Outcomes were analyzed using bivariate analyses, multivariable generalized linear models (GLM), and propensity-score matching (PSM).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 18,892 total RSG procedures that met eligibility criteria, robotic staplers were used in 15,152 procedures (80.2%) and bedside staplers were used in 3740 (19.8%). While RSG increased dramatically during the period, RS were shown to be associated with a greater risk of blood transfusion compared to bedside staplers both in a GLM [0.5% (BS) vs 0.7% (RS); Odds ratio (OR): 1.55; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-2.36; p = 0.04] and after PSM [0.3% (BS) vs 0.9% (RS); OR: 3.02; 95% CI: 1.35-6.73; p = 0.007]. Bedside staplers were associated with total costs reduction [mean cost savings: $3084; 95% CI: $2860 - $3309; p < 0.001] and shorter ORT (21 minutes; 95% CI: 18.6-23.5; p < 0.001) compared to robotic staplers. Difference in LOS was not clinically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When used during RSG, bedside staplers are cost-saving, with equivalent or better clinical outcomes and reduced resource utilization compared to robotic staplers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\"17 \",\"pages\":\"561-569\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12379977/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S525137\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S525137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:机器人平台通常用于袖式胃切除术,尽管资金成本高,并且对平台特定耗材和标准手术替代方案在临床结果和医疗资源利用中的作用知之甚少。本研究评估了不同类型吻合器在机器人袖式胃切除术(RSG)中的应用趋势、效果(结果)和效率(资源利用)。患者和方法:这是一项回顾性观察性队列研究,分析了来自PINC AI™医疗保健数据库的数据。如果患者使用Intuitive Surgical机器人系统(Sunnyvale, CA)使用床边订书机(BS, Signia™,endogia™或Tri-staple™)或机器人订书机(RS, Sureform™)进行了选择性住院一期袖式胃切除术,则纳入患者。主要结局指标包括住院费用、并发症、手术室时间(ORT)、住院时间(LOS)和重症监护病房就诊次数。结果分析采用双变量分析、多变量广义线性模型(GLM)和倾向得分匹配(PSM)。结果:在符合资格标准的18892例RSG手术中,15152例(80.2%)使用机器人订书机,3740例(19.8%)使用床边订书机。虽然RSG在此期间急剧增加,但与GLM组的床边订书机相比,RS与更大的输血风险相关[0.5% (BS) vs 0.7% (RS);优势比(OR): 1.55;95%置信区间(CI): 1.02-2.36;p = 0.04]和PSM后[0.3% (BS) vs 0.9% (RS);OR: 3.02;95% ci: 1.35-6.73;P = 0.007]。床边订书机与总成本降低相关[平均成本节约:3084美元;95% ci: $2860 - $3309;p < 0.001]和更短的ORT(21分钟;95% CI: 18.6-23.5; p < 0.001)。LOS的差异无临床意义。结论:与机器人订书机相比,在RSG期间使用床边订书机节省了成本,具有同等或更好的临床效果,减少了资源利用率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Trends, Patient Outcomes, and Resource Utilization Associated with Surgical Staplers During Robotic Sleeve Gastrectomy.

Trends, Patient Outcomes, and Resource Utilization Associated with Surgical Staplers During Robotic Sleeve Gastrectomy.

Trends, Patient Outcomes, and Resource Utilization Associated with Surgical Staplers During Robotic Sleeve Gastrectomy.

Purpose: Robotic platforms are commonly used for sleeve gastrectomy, despite the high capital costs and little understanding of the roles of platform-specific consumables and standard surgical alternatives in clinical outcomes and healthcare resource utilization. This study evaluates the trend, the effectiveness (outcomes) and efficiency (resource utilization) of different types of surgical staplers used in robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG).

Patients and methods: This was a retrospective observational cohort study analyzing data from the PINC AI™ Healthcare Data database. Patients were included if they underwent elective, inpatient, primary sleeve gastrectomy performed using the Intuitive Surgical robotic system (Sunnyvale, CA) with either a bedside stapler (BS, Signia™, Endo-GIA™, or Tri-staple™) or a robotic stapler (RS, Sureform™). The primary outcome measures included inpatient costs, complications, operating room time (ORT), length of stay (LOS), and intensive care unit visits. Outcomes were analyzed using bivariate analyses, multivariable generalized linear models (GLM), and propensity-score matching (PSM).

Results: Of 18,892 total RSG procedures that met eligibility criteria, robotic staplers were used in 15,152 procedures (80.2%) and bedside staplers were used in 3740 (19.8%). While RSG increased dramatically during the period, RS were shown to be associated with a greater risk of blood transfusion compared to bedside staplers both in a GLM [0.5% (BS) vs 0.7% (RS); Odds ratio (OR): 1.55; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-2.36; p = 0.04] and after PSM [0.3% (BS) vs 0.9% (RS); OR: 3.02; 95% CI: 1.35-6.73; p = 0.007]. Bedside staplers were associated with total costs reduction [mean cost savings: $3084; 95% CI: $2860 - $3309; p < 0.001] and shorter ORT (21 minutes; 95% CI: 18.6-23.5; p < 0.001) compared to robotic staplers. Difference in LOS was not clinically significant.

Conclusion: When used during RSG, bedside staplers are cost-saving, with equivalent or better clinical outcomes and reduced resource utilization compared to robotic staplers.

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
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
83
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信