Incidence of Incisional Hernias after Single-Port Versus Multi-Port Robotic Radical Prostatectomy.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Journal of endourology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-29 DOI:10.1089/end.2024.0367
J Corbin Norton, Tyler Compher, Luke Shumaker, Zachary Burns, Jeffrey W Nix, Abhishek D Parmar, Soroush Rais-Bahrami
{"title":"Incidence of Incisional Hernias after Single-Port Versus Multi-Port Robotic Radical Prostatectomy.","authors":"J Corbin Norton, Tyler Compher, Luke Shumaker, Zachary Burns, Jeffrey W Nix, Abhishek D Parmar, Soroush Rais-Bahrami","doi":"10.1089/end.2024.0367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Purpose:</i></b> To determine if single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP) has higher rates of incisional hernias when compared with multi-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies (MP-RARP). <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> A retrospective, single-institution review of all consecutive robotic prostatectomy cases between January 2017 and December 2022. Analyzed multi-port and single-port robotic prostatectomies performed by two high-volume surgeons. Measured primary outcome for the development of incisional hernias, as defined by computed tomography imaging and clinical documentation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the effect of the single-port approach on incisional hernia outcomes. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 493 patients were included in the study (320 SP-RARPs and 173 MP-RARPs). The overall incisional hernia rate was 8.5% (SP-RARP 8.1% <i>vs</i> MP-RARP 9.2%, <i>p</i> = 0.669). A median follow-up time was 16.6 months and a median time from procedure to hernia diagnosis was 7.4 months. SP-RARP had shorter OR time than the MP-RARP (236 minutes <i>vs</i> 276 minutes, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Patients who developed hernias had higher body mass index (BMIs) than those who did not (30.7 <i>vs</i> 29, <i>p</i> = 0.009). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that patients with higher BMI (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.14) and a history of prior operation (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.71-4.29) were more likely to develop incisional hernias. Cox regression analysis accounting for the difference in follow-up period demonstrated that SP-RARP 3.4× more likely to develop incisional hernias than MP-RARP (hazard ratio 3.38, 95% CI 1.50-7.58). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Patients with higher BMIs and prior history of abdominal surgeries are at increased risk of developing postoperative incisional hernias. SP-RARP procedures confer a higher risk of postoperative incisional hernias.</p>","PeriodicalId":15723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endourology","volume":" ","pages":"2-9"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endourology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2024.0367","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To determine if single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP) has higher rates of incisional hernias when compared with multi-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies (MP-RARP). Materials and Methods: A retrospective, single-institution review of all consecutive robotic prostatectomy cases between January 2017 and December 2022. Analyzed multi-port and single-port robotic prostatectomies performed by two high-volume surgeons. Measured primary outcome for the development of incisional hernias, as defined by computed tomography imaging and clinical documentation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the effect of the single-port approach on incisional hernia outcomes. Results: A total of 493 patients were included in the study (320 SP-RARPs and 173 MP-RARPs). The overall incisional hernia rate was 8.5% (SP-RARP 8.1% vs MP-RARP 9.2%, p = 0.669). A median follow-up time was 16.6 months and a median time from procedure to hernia diagnosis was 7.4 months. SP-RARP had shorter OR time than the MP-RARP (236 minutes vs 276 minutes, p < 0.001). Patients who developed hernias had higher body mass index (BMIs) than those who did not (30.7 vs 29, p = 0.009). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that patients with higher BMI (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.14) and a history of prior operation (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.71-4.29) were more likely to develop incisional hernias. Cox regression analysis accounting for the difference in follow-up period demonstrated that SP-RARP 3.4× more likely to develop incisional hernias than MP-RARP (hazard ratio 3.38, 95% CI 1.50-7.58). Conclusions: Patients with higher BMIs and prior history of abdominal surgeries are at increased risk of developing postoperative incisional hernias. SP-RARP procedures confer a higher risk of postoperative incisional hernias.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单孔与多孔机器人根治性前列腺切除术后切口疝的发生率。
目的:确定单孔机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术(SP-RARP)是否比多孔机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术(MP-RARP)有更高的切口疝发生率。材料和方法:对2017年1月至2022年12月期间所有连续机器人前列腺切除术病例进行回顾性、单机构回顾。分析两名高容量外科医生进行的多孔和单孔机器人前列腺切除术。测量切口疝发展的主要结局,由计算机断层成像和临床文献定义。采用多变量logistic回归来确定单孔入路对切口疝预后的影响。结果:共纳入493例患者,其中SP-RARPs 320例,MP-RARPs 173例。总切口疝发生率为8.5% (SP-RARP 8.1% vs MP-RARP 9.2%, p = 0.669)。中位随访时间为16.6个月,从手术到疝气诊断的中位时间为7.4个月。SP-RARP的OR时间短于MP-RARP(236分钟vs 276分钟,p < 0.001)。发生疝气的患者的身体质量指数(bmi)高于未发生疝气的患者(30.7 vs 29, p = 0.009)。多变量logistic回归分析显示,BMI较高(比值比[OR] 1.07, 95%可信区间[CI] 1.01-1.14)和既往手术史(比值比[OR] 2.23, 95% CI 1.71-4.29)的患者更容易发生切口疝。考虑随访时间差异的Cox回归分析显示,SP-RARP发生切口疝的可能性比MP-RARP高3.4倍(风险比3.38,95% CI 1.50-7.58)。结论:高bmi和既往腹部手术史的患者术后发生切口疝的风险增加。SP-RARP手术具有较高的术后切口疝风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of endourology
Journal of endourology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.80%
发文量
254
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Endourology, JE Case Reports, and Videourology are the leading peer-reviewed journal, case reports publication, and innovative videojournal companion covering all aspects of minimally invasive urology research, applications, and clinical outcomes. The leading journal of minimally invasive urology for over 30 years, Journal of Endourology is the essential publication for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest surgical technologies in endoscopic, laparoscopic, robotic, and image-guided procedures as they apply to benign and malignant diseases of the genitourinary tract. This flagship journal includes the companion videojournal Videourology™ with every subscription. While Journal of Endourology remains focused on publishing rigorously peer reviewed articles, Videourology accepts original videos containing material that has not been reported elsewhere, except in the form of an abstract or a conference presentation. Journal of Endourology coverage includes: The latest laparoscopic, robotic, endoscopic, and image-guided techniques for treating both benign and malignant conditions Pioneering research articles Controversial cases in endourology Techniques in endourology with accompanying videos Reviews and epochs in endourology Endourology survey section of endourology relevant manuscripts published in other journals.
期刊最新文献
Letter to the Editor: Caution in Interpreting Retrospective Data on Percutaneous Nephrostomy and Retrograde Ureteral Stenting for Obstructive Pyelonephritis. MRI Fusion Cryoablation: Is There an Outcome Difference Between Anterior and Posterior Lesions? Association Between Renal Pelvis Urine Density and the Risk of Infectious Complications after Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery. Development of Patient-Specific Nomogram to Assist in Clinical Decision-Making for Single Port Versus Multi-Port Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Report from the Single Port Advanced Robotic Consortium. Emerging Role of Laser Lithotripsy for Bladder Stones: Real-World Outcomes from Two European Endourology Centers with a Systematic Review of Literature.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1