腹腔镜腹膜内垫网与肌肉后机器人用于中小型腹疝修补:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Augusto Graziani E Sousa, Yasmin Biscola da Cruz, Júlia Copetti Burmann, Thiago Souza Silva, Leandro Totti Cavazzola, Diego Camacho, Diego Laurentino Lima
{"title":"腹腔镜腹膜内垫网与肌肉后机器人用于中小型腹疝修补:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Augusto Graziani E Sousa, Yasmin Biscola da Cruz, Júlia Copetti Burmann, Thiago Souza Silva, Leandro Totti Cavazzola, Diego Camacho, Diego Laurentino Lima","doi":"10.1177/10926429251376400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> This study aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus the robotic retromuscular (RM) techniques and their respective outcomes for small and medium-sized ventral hernia repair. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A comprehensive online search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. Studies comparing laparoscopic IPOM to robotic RM techniques were included. The results analyzed were the length of stay (LOS), surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrence (SSO), readmission, and reoperation. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio version 4.4.1 using a random-effects model. <b><i>Results:</i></b> From 956 records, three retrospective observational studies were included, encompassing 1351 patients (laparoscopic IPOM <i>n</i> = 882; robotic RM <i>n</i> = 469). Primary hernias represented 63%, and 88% had horizontal defects between 3.1 and 3.4 cm. Overall analysis showed comparable results between groups regarding LOS (mean difference: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.07 to 1.24; <i>P</i> = .08), SSI (risk ratio (RR): 0.90; 95% CI: 0.28-2.85; <i>P</i> = .85), and SSO rates (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.17-6.55; <i>P</i> = .94). In addition, no statistically significant results were seen for readmission (RR: 1.50; 95% CI: 0.79-2.85; <i>P</i> = .21) and reoperation rates (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.47 to 2.86; <i>P</i> = .74). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> This meta-analysis found similar postoperative outcomes for both laparoscopic IPOM and robotic RM techniques. Future studies are still required to evaluate the role of these operative methods following small- and medium-sized VHR.</p>","PeriodicalId":50166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laparoscopic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh Versus Robotic Retromuscular for Small- and Medium-Sized Ventral Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Augusto Graziani E Sousa, Yasmin Biscola da Cruz, Júlia Copetti Burmann, Thiago Souza Silva, Leandro Totti Cavazzola, Diego Camacho, Diego Laurentino Lima\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10926429251376400\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> This study aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus the robotic retromuscular (RM) techniques and their respective outcomes for small and medium-sized ventral hernia repair. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A comprehensive online search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. Studies comparing laparoscopic IPOM to robotic RM techniques were included. The results analyzed were the length of stay (LOS), surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrence (SSO), readmission, and reoperation. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio version 4.4.1 using a random-effects model. <b><i>Results:</i></b> From 956 records, three retrospective observational studies were included, encompassing 1351 patients (laparoscopic IPOM <i>n</i> = 882; robotic RM <i>n</i> = 469). Primary hernias represented 63%, and 88% had horizontal defects between 3.1 and 3.4 cm. Overall analysis showed comparable results between groups regarding LOS (mean difference: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.07 to 1.24; <i>P</i> = .08), SSI (risk ratio (RR): 0.90; 95% CI: 0.28-2.85; <i>P</i> = .85), and SSO rates (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.17-6.55; <i>P</i> = .94). In addition, no statistically significant results were seen for readmission (RR: 1.50; 95% CI: 0.79-2.85; <i>P</i> = .21) and reoperation rates (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.47 to 2.86; <i>P</i> = .74). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> This meta-analysis found similar postoperative outcomes for both laparoscopic IPOM and robotic RM techniques. Future studies are still required to evaluate the role of these operative methods following small- and medium-sized VHR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10926429251376400\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10926429251376400","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较腹腔镜腹膜内嵌补片(IPOM)和肌肉后机器人(RM)技术在中小型腹疝修复中的效果。方法:利用PubMed、Cochrane和Embase进行全面的在线检索。包括比较腹腔镜IPOM和机器人RM技术的研究。结果分析住院时间(LOS)、手术部位感染(SSI)、手术部位发生(SSO)、再入院和再手术。统计学分析采用R Studio 4.4.1版本,采用随机效应模型。结果:从956份记录中,纳入了3项回顾性观察性研究,包括1351名患者(腹腔镜IPOM n = 882;机器人RM n = 469)。原发性疝占63%,88%为3.1 ~ 3.4 cm水平缺损。总体分析显示,两组间在LOS(平均差异为0.58;95%可信区间[CI]: -0.07 ~ 1.24; P = .08)、SSI(风险比(RR): 0.90;95% ci: 0.28-2.85;P = 0.85)和单点登录率(RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.17-6.55; P = 0.94)。此外,再入院率(RR: 1.50; 95% CI: 0.79 ~ 2.85; P = 0.21)和再手术率(RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.47 ~ 2.86; P = 0.74)无统计学意义。结论:本荟萃分析发现腹腔镜IPOM和机器人RM技术的术后结果相似。未来的研究仍需要评估这些手术方法在中小型VHR后的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Laparoscopic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh Versus Robotic Retromuscular for Small- and Medium-Sized Ventral Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: This study aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus the robotic retromuscular (RM) techniques and their respective outcomes for small and medium-sized ventral hernia repair. Methods: A comprehensive online search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. Studies comparing laparoscopic IPOM to robotic RM techniques were included. The results analyzed were the length of stay (LOS), surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrence (SSO), readmission, and reoperation. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio version 4.4.1 using a random-effects model. Results: From 956 records, three retrospective observational studies were included, encompassing 1351 patients (laparoscopic IPOM n = 882; robotic RM n = 469). Primary hernias represented 63%, and 88% had horizontal defects between 3.1 and 3.4 cm. Overall analysis showed comparable results between groups regarding LOS (mean difference: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.07 to 1.24; P = .08), SSI (risk ratio (RR): 0.90; 95% CI: 0.28-2.85; P = .85), and SSO rates (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.17-6.55; P = .94). In addition, no statistically significant results were seen for readmission (RR: 1.50; 95% CI: 0.79-2.85; P = .21) and reoperation rates (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.47 to 2.86; P = .74). Conclusion: This meta-analysis found similar postoperative outcomes for both laparoscopic IPOM and robotic RM techniques. Future studies are still required to evaluate the role of these operative methods following small- and medium-sized VHR.

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
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
163
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques (JLAST) is the leading international peer-reviewed journal for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest thinking and advanced surgical technologies in laparoscopy, endoscopy, NOTES, and robotics. The Journal is ideally suited to surgeons who are early adopters of new technology and techniques. Recognizing that many new technologies and techniques have significant overlap with several surgical specialties, JLAST is the first journal to focus on these topics both in general and pediatric surgery, and includes other surgical subspecialties such as: urology, gynecologic surgery, thoracic surgery, and more.
×
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