腹腔镜非机器人腹部手术 (LapRas) 与腹腔镜机器人腹部手术 (LapRas) 中 PPC 的风险因素:LAS VEGAS 和 AVATaR 患者层面分析的原理和方案。

S C Serafini, S N T Hemmes, A Serpa Neto, M J Schultz, E Tschernko, M Gama de Abreu, G Mazzinari, L Ball
{"title":"腹腔镜非机器人腹部手术 (LapRas) 与腹腔镜机器人腹部手术 (LapRas) 中 PPC 的风险因素:LAS VEGAS 和 AVATaR 患者层面分析的原理和方案。","authors":"S C Serafini, S N T Hemmes, A Serpa Neto, M J Schultz, E Tschernko, M Gama de Abreu, G Mazzinari, L Ball","doi":"10.1016/j.redare.2024.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) vary amongst different surgical techniques. We aim to compare the incidence of PPCs after laparoscopic non-robotic versus laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods and analysis: </strong>LapRas (Risk Factors for PPCs in Laparoscopic Non-robotic vs Laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery) incorporates harmonized data from 2 observational studies on abdominal surgery patients and PPCs: 'Local ASsessment of VEntilatory management during General Anaesthesia for Surgery' (LAS VEGAS), and 'Assessment of Ventilation during general AnesThesia for Robotic surgery' (AVATaR). The primary endpoint is the occurrence of one or more PPCs in the first five postoperative days. Secondary endpoints include the occurrence of each individual PPC, hospital length of stay and in-hospital mortality. Logistic regression models will be used to identify risk factors for PPCs in laparoscopic non-robotic versus laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery. We will investigate whether differences in the occurrence of PPCs between the two groups are driven by differences in duration of anesthesia and/or the intensity of mechanical ventilation.</p><p><strong>Ethics and dissemination: </strong>This analysis will address a clinically relevant research question comparing laparoscopic and robotic assisted surgery. No additional ethical committee approval is required for this metanalysis. Data will be shared with the scientific community by abstracts and original articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>The registration of this post-hoc analysis is pending; individual studies that were merged into the used database were registered at clinicaltrials.gov: LAS VEGAS with identifier NCT01601223, AVATaR with identifier NCT02989415.</p>","PeriodicalId":94196,"journal":{"name":"Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk factors for PPCs in laparoscopic non-robotic vs. laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery (LapRas): rationale and protocol for a patient-level analysis of LAS VEGAS and AVATaR.\",\"authors\":\"S C Serafini, S N T Hemmes, A Serpa Neto, M J Schultz, E Tschernko, M Gama de Abreu, G Mazzinari, L Ball\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.redare.2024.07.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) vary amongst different surgical techniques. We aim to compare the incidence of PPCs after laparoscopic non-robotic versus laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods and analysis: </strong>LapRas (Risk Factors for PPCs in Laparoscopic Non-robotic vs Laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery) incorporates harmonized data from 2 observational studies on abdominal surgery patients and PPCs: 'Local ASsessment of VEntilatory management during General Anaesthesia for Surgery' (LAS VEGAS), and 'Assessment of Ventilation during general AnesThesia for Robotic surgery' (AVATaR). The primary endpoint is the occurrence of one or more PPCs in the first five postoperative days. Secondary endpoints include the occurrence of each individual PPC, hospital length of stay and in-hospital mortality. Logistic regression models will be used to identify risk factors for PPCs in laparoscopic non-robotic versus laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery. We will investigate whether differences in the occurrence of PPCs between the two groups are driven by differences in duration of anesthesia and/or the intensity of mechanical ventilation.</p><p><strong>Ethics and dissemination: </strong>This analysis will address a clinically relevant research question comparing laparoscopic and robotic assisted surgery. No additional ethical committee approval is required for this metanalysis. Data will be shared with the scientific community by abstracts and original articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>The registration of this post-hoc analysis is pending; individual studies that were merged into the used database were registered at clinicaltrials.gov: LAS VEGAS with identifier NCT01601223, AVATaR with identifier NCT02989415.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94196,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redare.2024.07.001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redare.2024.07.001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:不同手术技术的术后肺部并发症(PPCs)各不相同。我们旨在比较腹腔镜非机器人与腹腔镜机器人腹部手术后肺部并发症的发生率:LapRas(腹腔镜非机器人与腹腔镜机器人腹部手术 PPCs 的风险因素)整合了两项腹部手术患者和 PPCs 观察性研究的统一数据:"手术全身麻醉期间通气管理的局部评估"(LAS VEGAS)和 "机器人手术全身麻醉期间通气评估"(AVATaR)。主要终点是术后前五天内出现一种或多种 PPC。次要终点包括每种 PPC 的发生率、住院时间和院内死亡率。我们将使用逻辑回归模型来确定腹腔镜非机器人腹部手术与腹腔镜机器人腹部手术发生 PPC 的风险因素。我们将研究麻醉时间和/或机械通气强度的不同是否会导致两组间发生 PPCs 的差异:这项分析将解决一个与临床相关的研究问题,对腹腔镜手术和机器人辅助手术进行比较。这项荟萃分析无需获得伦理委员会的额外批准。数据将通过向同行评审期刊提交摘要和原创文章的方式与科学界共享:这项事后分析的注册工作尚未完成;合并到所用数据库中的单项研究已在 clinicaltrials.gov 注册:LAS VEGAS 的标识符为 NCT01601223,AVATaR 的标识符为 NCT02989415。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Risk factors for PPCs in laparoscopic non-robotic vs. laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery (LapRas): rationale and protocol for a patient-level analysis of LAS VEGAS and AVATaR.

Introduction: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) vary amongst different surgical techniques. We aim to compare the incidence of PPCs after laparoscopic non-robotic versus laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery.

Methods and analysis: LapRas (Risk Factors for PPCs in Laparoscopic Non-robotic vs Laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery) incorporates harmonized data from 2 observational studies on abdominal surgery patients and PPCs: 'Local ASsessment of VEntilatory management during General Anaesthesia for Surgery' (LAS VEGAS), and 'Assessment of Ventilation during general AnesThesia for Robotic surgery' (AVATaR). The primary endpoint is the occurrence of one or more PPCs in the first five postoperative days. Secondary endpoints include the occurrence of each individual PPC, hospital length of stay and in-hospital mortality. Logistic regression models will be used to identify risk factors for PPCs in laparoscopic non-robotic versus laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery. We will investigate whether differences in the occurrence of PPCs between the two groups are driven by differences in duration of anesthesia and/or the intensity of mechanical ventilation.

Ethics and dissemination: This analysis will address a clinically relevant research question comparing laparoscopic and robotic assisted surgery. No additional ethical committee approval is required for this metanalysis. Data will be shared with the scientific community by abstracts and original articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals.

Registration: The registration of this post-hoc analysis is pending; individual studies that were merged into the used database were registered at clinicaltrials.gov: LAS VEGAS with identifier NCT01601223, AVATaR with identifier NCT02989415.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Validity of estimated aortic pulse wave velocity measured during the 6-minute walk test to predict anaerobic fitness before major non-cardiac surgery. Intraoperative Goal-Directed Hemodynamic Therapy through Fluid Administration to Optimize the Stroke Volume: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Recommendations of the Pre-anaesthesia Teleconsultation Task Force. Use of fluid therapy in perioperative adult patients: a narrative review. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia, Morgagni-Larrey type
×
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