...
首页> 外文期刊>Annals of Surgery >Laparoscopic versus open anterior abdominal wall hernia repair: 30-day morbidity and mortality using the ACS-NSQIP database.
【24h】

Laparoscopic versus open anterior abdominal wall hernia repair: 30-day morbidity and mortality using the ACS-NSQIP database.

机译:腹腔镜与开放式前腹壁疝修补术:使用ACS-NSQIP数据库的30天发病率和死亡率。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To compare short-term outcomes after laparoscopic and open abdominal wall hernia repair. METHODS: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database (2005-2009), 71,054 patients who underwent an abdominal wall hernia repair were identified (17% laparoscopic, 83% open). Laparoscopic and open techniques were compared. Regression models and nonparametric 1:1 matching algorithms were used to minimize the influence of treatment selection bias. The association between surgical approach and risk-adjusted adverse event rates after abdominal wall hernia repair was determined. Subgroup analysis was performed between inpatient/outpatient surgery, strangulated/reducible, and initial/recurrent hernias as well as between umbilical, incisional and other ventral hernias. RESULTS: Patients undergoing laparoscopic repair were less likely to experience an overall morbidity (6.0% vs. 3.8%; odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.68) or a serious morbidity (2.5% vs. 1.6%; OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52-0.71) compared to open repair. Analysis using multivariate adjustment and patient matching showed similar findings. Mortality rates were the same. Laparoscopically repaired strangulated and recurrent hernias, had a significantly lower overall morbidity (4.7% vs. 8.1%, P < 0.0001 and 4.1% vs. 12.2%, P < 0.0001, respectively). Significantly lower overall morbidity was also noted for the laparoscopic approach when the hernias were categorized into umbilical (1.9% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.009), ventral (3.9% vs. 6.3%, P < 0.0001), and incisional (4.3% vs. 9.1%, P < 0.0001). No differences were noted between laparoscopic and open repairs in patients undergoing outpatient surgery, when the hernias were reducible. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic hernia repair is infrequently used and associated with lower 30-day morbidity, particularly when hernias are complicated.
机译:目的:比较腹腔镜和开放性腹壁疝修补术后的近期预后。方法:使用美国外科医师学会国家外科手术质量改善计划(ACS-NSQIP)数据库(2005-2009),确定了71,054例接受腹壁疝修补术的患者(腹腔镜手术17%,开放手术83%)。比较了腹腔镜和开放技术。回归模型和非参数1:1匹配算法用于最小化治疗选择偏倚的影响。确定腹壁疝修补术后手术方法与风险调整的不良事件发生率之间的关联。在住院/门诊手术,绞窄/可复位,初次/复发疝以及脐带,切开疝和其他腹侧疝之间进行亚组分析。结果:接受腹腔镜修复的患者不太可能出现总体发病率(6.0%比3.8%;优势比[OR]为0.62; 95%置信区间[CI]为0.56-0.68)或严重发病率(2.5%vs相较于开放维修,则为1.6%; OR为0.61; 95%CI为0.52-0.71)。使用多元调整和患者匹配的分析显示了相似的发现。死亡率相同。腹腔镜修复的绞窄性疝和复发性疝的总发病率明显降低(分别为4.7%vs. 8.1%,P <0.0001和4.1%vs. 12.2%,P <0.0001)。当将疝气分为脐带(1.9%vs. 3.0%,P = 0.009),腹侧(3.9%vs. 6.3%,P <0.0001)和切开性(4.3%)时,腹腔镜手术的总体发病率也显着降低比9.1%,P <0.0001)。在疝气可减轻的情况下,在接受门诊手术的患者中,腹腔镜和开放式修复之间没有差异。结论:腹腔镜疝气修补术很少使用,且与30天发病率较低相关,尤其是在疝气复杂的情况下。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号