原发性腹股沟疝的腹腔镜腹膜内粘贴网加与机器人经腹腹膜前粘贴:我们的技术和结果。

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY Journal of Minimal Access Surgery Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.4103/jmas.jmas_4_24
Vivek Bindal, Dhananjay Pandey, Shailesh Gupta
{"title":"原发性腹股沟疝的腹腔镜腹膜内粘贴网加与机器人经腹腹膜前粘贴:我们的技术和结果。","authors":"Vivek Bindal, Dhananjay Pandey, Shailesh Gupta","doi":"10.4103/jmas.jmas_4_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Intra-peritoneal onlay mesh repair (IPOM) still remains the most common approach for laparoscopic repair of small to medium sized hernias worldwide. In this study, we compare our early outcomes of an established procedure, i.e. laparoscopic IPOM plus to robotic transabdominal pre-peritoneal (rTAPP) for small to medium sized primary ventral hernia. To compare laparoscopic IPOM plus with rTAPP in terms of pain score, time to ambulate, hospital stay, time to return to work as well as the expenses.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data at our centre between July 2021 and June 2022. Operative time including docking time was recorded. Cost analysis was done in both set of patients. Pain scores were assessed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at regular intervals for up to 3 months and then at the end of 1 year. Time to ambulate, return of bowel function and return to work were documented. Any complication or recurrence during the study period was recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean operative time for IPOM plus and rTAPP groups was 59.00 and 73.55 min, respectively. Mean pain score for IPOM at 6, 12 and 24 h was 7.35, 6.81 and 5.77, while for rTAPP, it was 4.73, 3 and 2.55, respectively. VAS scores at 1 week, 1 month and 3 month also showed similar trends. Mean time to ambulate in minutes for IPOM and rTAPP group was 357.69 and 223.64, respectively. Mean hospital stay in days for IPOM and rTAPP was 2.12 and 1.18, respectively. Mean time to return to work in days was 11.77 and 8.45 for IPOM and rTAPP groups, respectively. Expenditure wise, cost of TAPP was more and statistically significant, owing to the use of robotic platform. The mean overall cost of laparoscopic IPOM plus and rTAPP in rupees was 187,177.69 and 245,174.55, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic TAPP appears an excellent alternative to laparoscopic IPOM plus. Larger studies with long-term follow-up data are further required to reinforce it.</p>","PeriodicalId":48905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laparoscopic intra-peritoneal onlay mesh plus versus robotic transabdominal pre-peritoneal for primary ventral hernias: Our technique and outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Vivek Bindal, Dhananjay Pandey, Shailesh Gupta\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jmas.jmas_4_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Intra-peritoneal onlay mesh repair (IPOM) still remains the most common approach for laparoscopic repair of small to medium sized hernias worldwide. In this study, we compare our early outcomes of an established procedure, i.e. laparoscopic IPOM plus to robotic transabdominal pre-peritoneal (rTAPP) for small to medium sized primary ventral hernia. To compare laparoscopic IPOM plus with rTAPP in terms of pain score, time to ambulate, hospital stay, time to return to work as well as the expenses.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data at our centre between July 2021 and June 2022. Operative time including docking time was recorded. Cost analysis was done in both set of patients. Pain scores were assessed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at regular intervals for up to 3 months and then at the end of 1 year. Time to ambulate, return of bowel function and return to work were documented. Any complication or recurrence during the study period was recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean operative time for IPOM plus and rTAPP groups was 59.00 and 73.55 min, respectively. Mean pain score for IPOM at 6, 12 and 24 h was 7.35, 6.81 and 5.77, while for rTAPP, it was 4.73, 3 and 2.55, respectively. VAS scores at 1 week, 1 month and 3 month also showed similar trends. Mean time to ambulate in minutes for IPOM and rTAPP group was 357.69 and 223.64, respectively. Mean hospital stay in days for IPOM and rTAPP was 2.12 and 1.18, respectively. Mean time to return to work in days was 11.77 and 8.45 for IPOM and rTAPP groups, respectively. Expenditure wise, cost of TAPP was more and statistically significant, owing to the use of robotic platform. The mean overall cost of laparoscopic IPOM plus and rTAPP in rupees was 187,177.69 and 245,174.55, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic TAPP appears an excellent alternative to laparoscopic IPOM plus. Larger studies with long-term follow-up data are further required to reinforce it.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48905,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.jmas_4_24\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.jmas_4_24","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:腹膜内嵌网修补术(IPOM)仍然是全球中小型疝气腹腔镜修补术中最常用的方法。在这项研究中,我们比较了腹腔镜腹膜内网片修补术(IPOM)和机器人经腹腹膜前网片修补术(rTAPP)这两种治疗中小型原发性腹股沟疝的成熟手术的早期疗效。比较腹腔镜 IPOM plus 和 rTAPP 在疼痛评分、行走时间、住院时间、恢复工作时间以及费用方面的差异:这是对本中心在 2021 年 7 月至 2022 年 6 月期间收集的前瞻性数据进行的回顾性分析。记录了包括对接时间在内的手术时间。对两组患者进行了成本分析。疼痛评分采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)进行评估,每隔3个月评估一次,然后在1年后进行评估。记录患者的行走时间、肠道功能恢复情况和重返工作岗位情况。研究期间的任何并发症或复发情况都会记录在案:IPOM+组和 rTAPP 组的平均手术时间分别为 59.00 分钟和 73.55 分钟。IPOM在6、12和24小时的平均疼痛评分分别为7.35、6.81和5.77,而rTAPP则分别为4.73、3和2.55。1周、1个月和3个月时的VAS评分也显示出相似的趋势。IPOM 组和 rTAPP 组的平均步行时间(分钟)分别为 357.69 分钟和 223.64 分钟。IPOM组和rTAPP组的平均住院天数分别为2.12天和1.18天。IPOM 组和 rTAPP 组重返工作岗位的平均时间分别为 11.77 天和 8.45 天。从费用上看,由于使用了机器人平台,TAPP 的费用更高,且具有显著的统计学意义。腹腔镜 IPOM+ 和 rTAPP 的平均总费用分别为 187,177.69 卢比和 245,174.55 卢比:结论:机器人TAPP似乎是腹腔镜IPOM plus的最佳替代方案。还需要更大规模的研究和长期的随访数据来巩固这一观点。
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
Laparoscopic intra-peritoneal onlay mesh plus versus robotic transabdominal pre-peritoneal for primary ventral hernias: Our technique and outcomes.

Introduction: Intra-peritoneal onlay mesh repair (IPOM) still remains the most common approach for laparoscopic repair of small to medium sized hernias worldwide. In this study, we compare our early outcomes of an established procedure, i.e. laparoscopic IPOM plus to robotic transabdominal pre-peritoneal (rTAPP) for small to medium sized primary ventral hernia. To compare laparoscopic IPOM plus with rTAPP in terms of pain score, time to ambulate, hospital stay, time to return to work as well as the expenses.

Patients and methods: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data at our centre between July 2021 and June 2022. Operative time including docking time was recorded. Cost analysis was done in both set of patients. Pain scores were assessed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at regular intervals for up to 3 months and then at the end of 1 year. Time to ambulate, return of bowel function and return to work were documented. Any complication or recurrence during the study period was recorded.

Results: Mean operative time for IPOM plus and rTAPP groups was 59.00 and 73.55 min, respectively. Mean pain score for IPOM at 6, 12 and 24 h was 7.35, 6.81 and 5.77, while for rTAPP, it was 4.73, 3 and 2.55, respectively. VAS scores at 1 week, 1 month and 3 month also showed similar trends. Mean time to ambulate in minutes for IPOM and rTAPP group was 357.69 and 223.64, respectively. Mean hospital stay in days for IPOM and rTAPP was 2.12 and 1.18, respectively. Mean time to return to work in days was 11.77 and 8.45 for IPOM and rTAPP groups, respectively. Expenditure wise, cost of TAPP was more and statistically significant, owing to the use of robotic platform. The mean overall cost of laparoscopic IPOM plus and rTAPP in rupees was 187,177.69 and 245,174.55, respectively.

Conclusion: Robotic TAPP appears an excellent alternative to laparoscopic IPOM plus. Larger studies with long-term follow-up data are further required to reinforce it.

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
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
151
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Minimal Access Surgery (JMAS), the official publication of Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endo Surgeons, launched in early 2005. The JMAS, a quarterly publication, is the first English-language journal from India, as also from this part of the world, dedicated to Minimal Access Surgery. The JMAS boasts an outstanding editorial board comprising of Indian and international experts in the field.
期刊最新文献
A case series analysis of spigelian hernia: A diagnostic dilemma and its successful laparoscopic repair. Giant left spontaneous diaphragmatic hernia repair via combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approaches. Glanzmann's thrombasthenia: A nightmare for hernia surgeons. Impact of uterine weight on surgical outcomes in robotic hysterectomy: An ambispective analysis. Initial experience of SSI Mantra robot-assisted Transabdominal pre-peritoneal repair of primary ventral hernias.
×
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