T Violante, D Ferrari, A Sileo, R Sassun, J C Ng, K L Mathis, N P McKenna, K K Rumer, D W Larson
{"title":"Assessing robotic-assisted surgery versus open approach in penetrating Crohn's disease: advantages and outcomes in ileocolic resection.","authors":"T Violante, D Ferrari, A Sileo, R Sassun, J C Ng, K L Mathis, N P McKenna, K K Rumer, D W Larson","doi":"10.1007/s10151-024-02985-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Penetrating Crohn's disease (CD) often necessitates surgical intervention, with the open approach traditionally favored. Robotic-assisted surgery offers potential benefits but remains understudied in this complex patient population. Additionally, the lack of standardized surgical complexity scoring in CD hinders research and comparisons.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed adult patients with penetrating CD who underwent either robotic-assisted ileocolic resection (RICR) or open ileocolic resection (OICR) at our institution from January 2007 to December 2021. We assessed endpoints, including length of stay, complications, readmissions, reoperations, and other perioperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>RICR demonstrated safety outcomes comparable to OICR. Importantly, RICR patients experienced significantly reduced estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001), shorter hospital stays (median 4.5 days versus 6.9 days; p = 0.01), lower surgical site infection rates (0% versus 15.4%; p = 0.01), and decreased 30-day readmission rates (0% versus 15.4%; p = 0.01). Linear regression analysis revealed the need for additional strictureplasties (coefficient: 84.8; p = 0.008), colonic resections (coefficient: 41.7; p = 0.008), and estimated blood loss (coefficient: 0.07; p = 0.002) independently correlated with longer operative times).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic-assisted surgery appears to be a safe and potentially beneficial alternative for the surgical management of penetrating CD, offering advantages in perioperative outcomes reducing length of stay, blood loss, surgical site infection rates, and readmission rates. Further validation with larger cohorts is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":51192,"journal":{"name":"Techniques in Coloproctology","volume":"28 1","pages":"112"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techniques in Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-024-02985-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Penetrating Crohn's disease (CD) often necessitates surgical intervention, with the open approach traditionally favored. Robotic-assisted surgery offers potential benefits but remains understudied in this complex patient population. Additionally, the lack of standardized surgical complexity scoring in CD hinders research and comparisons.
Methods: We retrospectively analyzed adult patients with penetrating CD who underwent either robotic-assisted ileocolic resection (RICR) or open ileocolic resection (OICR) at our institution from January 2007 to December 2021. We assessed endpoints, including length of stay, complications, readmissions, reoperations, and other perioperative outcomes.
Results: RICR demonstrated safety outcomes comparable to OICR. Importantly, RICR patients experienced significantly reduced estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001), shorter hospital stays (median 4.5 days versus 6.9 days; p = 0.01), lower surgical site infection rates (0% versus 15.4%; p = 0.01), and decreased 30-day readmission rates (0% versus 15.4%; p = 0.01). Linear regression analysis revealed the need for additional strictureplasties (coefficient: 84.8; p = 0.008), colonic resections (coefficient: 41.7; p = 0.008), and estimated blood loss (coefficient: 0.07; p = 0.002) independently correlated with longer operative times).
Conclusion: Robotic-assisted surgery appears to be a safe and potentially beneficial alternative for the surgical management of penetrating CD, offering advantages in perioperative outcomes reducing length of stay, blood loss, surgical site infection rates, and readmission rates. Further validation with larger cohorts is warranted.
期刊介绍:
Techniques in Coloproctology is an international journal fully devoted to diagnostic and operative procedures carried out in the management of colorectal diseases. Imaging, clinical physiology, laparoscopy, open abdominal surgery and proctoperineology are the main topics covered by the journal. Reviews, original articles, technical notes and short communications with many detailed illustrations render this publication indispensable for coloproctologists and related specialists. Both surgeons and gastroenterologists are represented on the distinguished Editorial Board, together with pathologists, radiologists and basic scientists from all over the world. The journal is strongly recommended to those who wish to be updated on recent developments in the field, and improve the standards of their work.
Manuscripts submitted for publication must contain a statement to the effect that all human studies have been reviewed by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in an appropriate version of the 1965 Declaration of Helsinki. It should also be stated clearly in the text that all persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study should be omitted. Reports of animal experiments must state that the Principles of Laboratory Animal Care (NIH publication no. 86-23 revised 1985) were followed as were applicable national laws (e.g. the current version of the German Law on the Protection of Animals). The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. Authors will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill such requirements.