PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: To estimate the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) and to assess the clinical outcomes in two different types of mesh in robotic Rives-Stoppa (rRS) ventral hernia repair (VHR).
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective analysis of a robotic VHR database between February 1, 2013 and May 31, 2022. Patients who underwent a rRS VHR were included in this study and separated into two groups depending on the mesh used: SynecorTM Preperitoneal Biomaterial (SynecorTM Pre) and Bard™ Soft. Through propensity score and inverse-probability-treatment-weighting, the ATT was estimated for two scenarios; the first with the treated target having used the SynecorTM Pre, the second having used the Bard™ Soft mesh. Adjusted linear regression models, including lingering imbalanced variables, were used for both the primary outcome of the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), and the secondary outcome of the hospital cost.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 186 patients who underwent rRS were separated into the two groups (SynecorTM Pre mesh, n = 85; Bard™ Soft mesh, n = 101). Adjusted linear regression models for the CCI showed no statistical difference between both groups (p > 0.05), whereas ATT on hospital cost was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the SynecorTM Pre group in both scenarios [(95% confidence interval) = 3882 (2352, 5413) and -5185 (-8213, -2157), respectively].
UNASSIGNED: Both mesh materials provided excellent outcomes with no difference in complications or recurrence rates. However, hospital cost was found to be higher in the hybrid mesh group. Long-term follow-up is needed to fully assess the performance of both mesh types in rRS.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective analysis of a robotic VHR database between February 1, 2013 and May 31, 2022. Patients who underwent a rRS VHR were included in this study and separated into two groups depending on the mesh used: SynecorTM Preperitoneal Biomaterial (SynecorTM Pre) and Bard™ Soft. Through propensity score and inverse-probability-treatment-weighting, the ATT was estimated for two scenarios; the first with the treated target having used the SynecorTM Pre, the second having used the Bard™ Soft mesh. Adjusted linear regression models, including lingering imbalanced variables, were used for both the primary outcome of the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), and the secondary outcome of the hospital cost.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 186 patients who underwent rRS were separated into the two groups (SynecorTM Pre mesh, n = 85; Bard™ Soft mesh, n = 101). Adjusted linear regression models for the CCI showed no statistical difference between both groups (p > 0.05), whereas ATT on hospital cost was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the SynecorTM Pre group in both scenarios [(95% confidence interval) = 3882 (2352, 5413) and -5185 (-8213, -2157), respectively].
UNASSIGNED: Both mesh materials provided excellent outcomes with no difference in complications or recurrence rates. However, hospital cost was found to be higher in the hybrid mesh group. Long-term follow-up is needed to fully assess the performance of both mesh types in rRS.
摘要：
UNASSIGNED：评估机器人Rives-Stoppa（rRS）腹侧疝修补术（VHR）中两种不同类型网格的平均治疗效果，并评估临床结果。
UNASSIGNED：对2013年2月1日至2022年5月31日之间的机器人VHR数据库进行的回顾性分析。接受rRSVHR的患者被纳入本研究，并根据使用的网格分为两组：SynecorTM腹膜前生物材料（SynecorTMPre）和Bard™Soft。通过倾向评分和逆概率处理加权，ATT是针对两种情况进行估计的；第一种情况是治疗目标使用了SynecorTMPre，第二个使用Bard™软网。调整后的线性回归模型，包括挥之不去的不平衡变量，用于综合并发症指数(CCI®)的主要结果，以及住院费用的次要结果。
UNASSIGNED：共有186例接受rRS的患者分为两组（SynecorTMPremesh，n=85;Bard™软网格,n=101)。CCI的校正线性回归模型显示两组之间无统计学差异（p>0.05），而在两种情况下，SynecorTMPre组中的医院费用ATT均显着较高（p<0.001）[（95％置信区间）=3882（2352，5413）和-5185（-8213，-2157），分别]。
UNASSIGNED：两种网状材料均提供了优异的结果，并发症或复发率无差异。然而,混合网格组的医院费用较高。需要长期随访才能全面评估两种网格类型在rRS中的性能。
UNASSIGNED：对2013年2月1日至2022年5月31日之间的机器人VHR数据库进行的回顾性分析。接受rRSVHR的患者被纳入本研究，并根据使用的网格分为两组：SynecorTM腹膜前生物材料（SynecorTMPre）和Bard™Soft。通过倾向评分和逆概率处理加权，ATT是针对两种情况进行估计的；第一种情况是治疗目标使用了SynecorTMPre，第二个使用Bard™软网。调整后的线性回归模型，包括挥之不去的不平衡变量，用于综合并发症指数(CCI®)的主要结果，以及住院费用的次要结果。
UNASSIGNED：共有186例接受rRS的患者分为两组（SynecorTMPremesh，n=85;Bard™软网格,n=101)。CCI的校正线性回归模型显示两组之间无统计学差异（p>0.05），而在两种情况下，SynecorTMPre组中的医院费用ATT均显着较高（p<0.001）[（95％置信区间）=3882（2352，5413）和-5185（-8213，-2157），分别]。
UNASSIGNED：两种网状材料均提供了优异的结果，并发症或复发率无差异。然而,混合网格组的医院费用较高。需要长期随访才能全面评估两种网格类型在rRS中的性能。
