K A LeBlanc1, A Gonzalez2, E Dickens3, J Olsofka4, C Ortiz-Ortiz5, J-C Verdeja2, R Pierce6. 1. Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center, 7777 Hennessy Blvd., Suite 612, Baton Rouge, LA, 70808, USA. docmba2@yahoo.com. 2. Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, USA. 3. Hillcrest Medical Center, Tulsa, OK, USA. 4. Louisville Surgical Associates, Louisville, KY, USA. 5. Advent Health, Celebration, FL, USA. 6. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide a comparative analysis of short-term outcomes after open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted (RAS) ventral incisional hernia (VIH) repairs that include subject-reported pain medication usage and hernia-related quality of life (QOL). METHODS: Subjects were ≥ 18 years old and underwent elective open, laparoscopic or RAS VIH repair without myofascial release. Perioperative clinical outcomes through 30 days were analyzed as were prescription pain medication use and subject-reported responses to the HerQLes Abdominal QOL questionnaire. Observed differences in baseline characteristics were controlled using a weighted propensity score analysis to obviate potential selection bias (inverse probability of treatment weighting, IPTW). A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy-one subjects (RAS, n = 159; open, n = 130; laparoscopic, n = 82) were enrolled in the study across 17 medical institutions within the United States. Operative times were significantly different between the RAS and laparoscopic groups (126.2 vs 57.2, respectively; p < 0.001). Mean length of stay was comparable for RAS vs laparoscopic (1.4 ± 1.0 vs 1.4 ± 1.1, respectively; p = 0.623) and differed for the RAS vs open groups (1.4 ± 1.0 vs 2.0 ± 1.9, respectively; p < 0.001). Conversion rates differed between RAS and laparoscopic groups (0.6% vs 4.9%; p = 0.004). The number of subjects reporting the need to take prescription pain medication through the 2-4 weeks visit differed between RAS vs open (65.2% vs 79.8%; p < 0.001) and RAS vs laparoscopic (65.2% vs 78.75%; p < 0.001). For those taking prescription pain medication, the mean number of pills taken was comparable for RAS vs open (23.3 vs 20.4; p = 0.079) and RAS vs laparoscopic (23.3 vs 23.3; p = 0.786). Times to return to normal activities and to work, complication rates and HerQLes QOL scores were comparable for the RAS vs open and RAS vs laparoscopic groups. The reoperation rate within 30 days post-procedure was comparable for RAS vs laparoscopic (0.6% vs 0%; p = 0.296) and differed for RAS vs open (0.6% vs 3.1%; p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term outcomes indicate that open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted approaches are effective surgical approaches to VIH repair; however, each repair technique may demonstrate advantages in terms of clinical outcomes. Observed differences in the RAS vs laparoscopic comparison are longer operative time and lower conversion rate in the RAS group. Observed differences in the RAS vs open comparison are shorter LOS and lower reoperation rate through 30 days in the RAS group. The operative time in the RAS vs open comparison is similar. The number of subjects requiring the use of prescription pain medication favored the RAS group in both comparisons; however, among subjects reporting a need for pain medication, there was no difference in the number of prescription pain medication pills taken. While the study adds to the body of evidence evaluating the open, laparoscopic, and RAS approaches, future controlled studies are needed to better understand pain and QOL outcomes related to incisional hernia repair. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02715622.
PURPOSE: To provide a comparative analysis of short-term outcomes after open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted (RAS) ventral incisional hernia (VIH) repairs that include subject-reported pain medication usage and hernia-related quality of life (QOL). METHODS: Subjects were ≥ 18 years old and underwent elective open, laparoscopic or RAS VIH repair without myofascial release. Perioperative clinical outcomes through 30 days were analyzed as were prescription pain medication use and subject-reported responses to the HerQLes Abdominal QOL questionnaire. Observed differences in baseline characteristics were controlled using a weighted propensity score analysis to obviate potential selection bias (inverse probability of treatment weighting, IPTW). A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy-one subjects (RAS, n = 159; open, n = 130; laparoscopic, n = 82) were enrolled in the study across 17 medical institutions within the United States. Operative times were significantly different between the RAS and laparoscopic groups (126.2 vs 57.2, respectively; p < 0.001). Mean length of stay was comparable for RAS vs laparoscopic (1.4 ± 1.0 vs 1.4 ± 1.1, respectively; p = 0.623) and differed for the RAS vs open groups (1.4 ± 1.0 vs 2.0 ± 1.9, respectively; p < 0.001). Conversion rates differed between RAS and laparoscopic groups (0.6% vs 4.9%; p = 0.004). The number of subjects reporting the need to take prescription pain medication through the 2-4 weeks visit differed between RAS vs open (65.2% vs 79.8%; p < 0.001) and RAS vs laparoscopic (65.2% vs 78.75%; p < 0.001). For those taking prescription pain medication, the mean number of pills taken was comparable for RAS vs open (23.3 vs 20.4; p = 0.079) and RAS vs laparoscopic (23.3 vs 23.3; p = 0.786). Times to return to normal activities and to work, complication rates and HerQLes QOL scores were comparable for the RAS vs open and RAS vs laparoscopic groups. The reoperation rate within 30 days post-procedure was comparable for RAS vs laparoscopic (0.6% vs 0%; p = 0.296) and differed for RAS vs open (0.6% vs 3.1%; p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term outcomes indicate that open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted approaches are effective surgical approaches to VIH repair; however, each repair technique may demonstrate advantages in terms of clinical outcomes. Observed differences in the RAS vs laparoscopic comparison are longer operative time and lower conversion rate in the RAS group. Observed differences in the RAS vs open comparison are shorter LOS and lower reoperation rate through 30 days in the RAS group. The operative time in the RAS vs open comparison is similar. The number of subjects requiring the use of prescription pain medication favored the RAS group in both comparisons; however, among subjects reporting a need for pain medication, there was no difference in the number of prescription pain medication pills taken. While the study adds to the body of evidence evaluating the open, laparoscopic, and RAS approaches, future controlled studies are needed to better understand pain and QOL outcomes related to incisional hernia repair. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02715622.
Authors: Ajita S Prabhu; Eugene O Dickens; Chad M Copper; John W Mann; Jonathan P Yunis; Sharon Phillips; Li-Ching Huang; Benjamin K Poulose; Michael J Rosen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Beau Forester; Mikhail Attaar; Kara Donovan; Kristine Kuchta; Michael Ujiki; Woody Denham; Stephen P Haggerty; JoAnn Carbray; John Linn Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 4.584