背景:袖状胃切除术(SG)仍然是严重肥胖的安全有效治疗方法。机器人SG(RSG)的数量从2015年到2021年稳步增加。先前的研究表明,RSG的某些不良后果发生率更高,但没有考虑到使用的吻合器。
目的:本研究的目的是比较RSG与腹腔镜袖状胃切除术(LSG)的结果,占订书机类型使用。
方法:国家医院衍生的行政数据。
方法:本研究使用PINCAI医疗保健数据库。分析的队列包括2019年1月1日至2021年12月31日期间进行的选择性LSG或RSG。病人,医院,billing,提供者,保险,和手术数据被捕获。出血,泄漏,和其他结果由ICD-10-CM诊断代码确定。倾向评分匹配(PSM)比较RSG与SureForm订书机之间的结果带动力订书机的LSG。
结果:分析了56,013LSG和13,832RSG。RSG从2019年的15%增加到2021年的25%,RSG的机器人订书机利用率绝对增加了27%。PSM分析比较,5434RSG与SureForm订书机vs.5434LSG与电动吻合器显示相同的并发症发生率,较短的LOS,但使用RSG的手术时间更长。
结论:当考虑使用的订书机类型时,RSG和LSG后的患者结局相同.
BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) remains a safe and effective treatment for severe obesity. The number of
robotic SG (RSG) has steadily increased from 2015 to 2021. Prior studies have shown higher rates of some adverse outcomes with RSG but have not accounted for staplers used.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare outcomes for RSG compared to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), accounting for stapler type used.
METHODS: National hospital derived administrative data.
METHODS: The PINC AI Healthcare Database was used for the current study. Analyzed cohort included elective LSG or RSG performed between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2021. Patient, hospital, billing, provider, insurance, and operative data were captured. Bleeding, leak, and other outcomes were identified by ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes. Propensity score matching (PSM) compared outcomes between RSG with SureForm stapler vs. LSG with powered stapler.
RESULTS: 56,013 LSG and 13,832 RSG were analyzed. RSG increased from 15 % in 2019 to 25 % in 2021 with an absolute 27 % increase in
robotic stapler utilization for RSG. PSM analysis compared, 5434 RSG with SureForm Stapler vs. 5434 LSG with powered staplers showed equivalent complication rates, shorter LOS, but longer operative time with RSG.
CONCLUSIONS: When stapler type used is accounted for, patient outcomes following RSG and LSG are equivalent.