Erschienen in:
04.01.2021 | 2020 SAGES Poster
Comparative perioperative and 5-year outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic or open inguinal hernia repair: a study of 153,727 patients in the state of New York
verfasst von:
Talar Tatarian, Lizhou Nie, Connor McPartland, Andrew M. Brown, Jie Yang, Maria S. Altieri, Konstantinos Spaniolas, Salvatore Docimo, Aurora D. Pryor
Erschienen in:
Surgical Endoscopy
|
Ausgabe 12/2021
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
Abstract
Objective
This study aimed to examine the perioperative outcomes of robotic inguinal hernia repair as compared to the open and laparoscopic approaches utilizing large-scale population-level data.
Methods
This study was funded by the SAGES Robotic Surgery Research Grant (2019). The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) administrative database was used to identify all adult patients undergoing initial open (O-IHR), laparoscopic (L-IHR), and robotic (R-IHR) inguinal hernia repair between 2010 and 2016. Perioperative outcome measures [complications, length of stay (LOS), 30-day emergency department (ED) visits, 30-day readmissions] and estimated 1/3/5-year recurrence incidences were compared. Propensity score (PS) analysis was used to estimate marginal differences between R-IHR and L-IHR or O-IHR, using a 1:1 matching algorithm.
Results
During the study period, a total of 153,727 patients underwent inguinal hernia repair (117,603 [76.5%] O-IHR, 35,565 [23.1%] L-IHR; 559 [0.36%] R-IHR) in New York state. Initial univariate analysis found R-IHR to have longer LOS (1.74 days vs. 0.66 O-IHR vs 0.19 L-IHR) and higher rates of overall complications (9.3% vs. 3.6% O-IHR vs 1.1% L-IHR), 30-day ED visits (11.6% vs. 6.1% O-IHR vs. 4.9% L-IHR), and 30-day readmissions (5.6% vs. 2.4% O-IHR vs. 1.2% L-IHR) (p < 0.0001). R-IHR was associated with higher recurrence compared to L-IHR. Following PS analysis, there were no differences in perioperative outcomes between R-IHR and L-IHR, and the difference in recurrence was found to be sensitive to possible unobserved confounding factors. R-IHR had significantly lower risk of complications (Risk difference − 0.09, 95% CI [− 0.13, − 0.056]; p < 0.0001) and shorter LOS (Ratio 0.53, 95% CI [0.45, 0.62]; p < 0.0001) compared to O-IHR.
Conclusion
In adult patients, R-IHR may be associated with comparable to more favorable 30-day perioperative outcomes as compared with L-IHR and O-IHR, respectively.