Minimally invasive versus open duodenal switch: a nationwide retrospective analysis

被引:4
|
作者
Al-Mazrou, Ahmed M. [1 ]
Bellorin, Omar [1 ]
Dhar, Vikrom [1 ]
Dakin, Gregory [1 ]
Afaneh, Cheguevara [1 ]
机构
[1] Weill Cornell Med, Dept Surg, Div GI Metab & Bariatr Surg, NewYork Presbyterian Hosp, 525 East 68th St Box 294, New York, NY 10065 USA
来源
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES | 2022年 / 36卷 / 09期
关键词
Duodenal Switch; Bariatric; Minimally Invasive; Robot; Laparoscopy; Outcomes; LAPAROSCOPIC GASTRIC BYPASS; ROUX-EN-Y; BARIATRIC-SURGERY; BILIOPANCREATIC DIVERSION; DISCHARGE DISPOSITION; COMPLICATIONS; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1007/s00464-022-09020-4
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction This study aims to characterize the variability in clinical outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic Duodenal Switch (DS). Methods From the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery and Accreditation Quality Improvement Program, patients who underwent DS (2015-2018) were identified. Open DS was compared to laparoscopic and robotic approaches with for patients factors, perioperative characteristics, and 30-day postoperative outcomes. Logistic regression estimates were used to characterize variables associated with surgical site infections, bleeding, reoperation, readmission, and early discharge (hospital stay of <= one day). Results Of 7649 cases, 411 (5.4%) were open, 5722 (74.8%) were laparoscopic, and 1515 (19.8%) were robotic DS. Open DS patients were more often older (>= 65 years:4.7% vs. 4.3% vs. 2.1%, p < 0.01) and had lower body mass index (< 40 kg/m(2):16.3% vs. 10.5% vs. 9.9%, p < 0.01). The co-morbidities were mainly comparable between the three groups. Open DS was more often without skilled assistance (35.3% vs. 12.1% vs. 5.3%, p < 0.01), revisional (41.4% vs. 20.5% vs. 21.3%, p < 0.01), and performed concurrently with other operations. Robotic DS surgery was more often longer (>= 140 min:64.4% vs. 39.2% vs. 86.9%, p < 0.01). Post-operatively, open DS was associated with higher rates of surgical site infection (7.1% vs. 2% vs. 2.8%, p < 0.01), bleeding (2.4% vs. 0.7% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.001), reoperation (6.6% vs. 3.6% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.01), and readmission (12.4% vs. 6.8% vs. 8.3%, p = < 0.01). Patients undergoing robotic DS were more often discharged early (0.5% vs. 1% vs. 7.8%, p < 0.01). In the regression analyses, minimally invasive DS was associated with lower odds for wound infections (OR = 0.3,CI = [0.2-0.5]), bleeding (OR = 0.4,CI = [0.2-0.8]), and readmission (OR = 0.6,CI = [0.4-0.8]), as well as greater likelihood of early discharge (OR = 5.6 CI = [1.3-23.0]). Conclusion Open DS is associated with greater risk for complications and excessive resource utilization when compared to minimally invasive approaches. Laparoscopic and robotic techniques should be prioritized in performing DS, despite the complexity of the procedure.
引用
收藏
页码:7000 / 7007
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Minimally invasive versus open duodenal switch: a nationwide retrospective analysis
    Ahmed M. Al-Mazrou
    Omar Bellorin
    Vikrom Dhar
    Gregory Dakin
    Cheguevara Afaneh
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2022, 36 : 7000 - 7007
  • [2] Nationwide Readmissions Analysis of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Population-Based Study
    Ayuso, Sullivan A.
    Katzen, Michael M.
    Aladegbami, Bola G.
    Nayak, Raageswari B.
    Augenstein, Vedra A.
    Heniford, B. Todd
    Colavita, Paul D.
    AMERICAN SURGEON, 2022, 88 (03) : 463 - 470
  • [3] Minimally Invasive Versus Open Hammertoe Correction: A Retrospective Comparative Study
    Mateen, Sara
    Raja, Shehryar
    Casciato, Dominick J.
    Siddiqui, Noman A.
    JOURNAL OF FOOT & ANKLE SURGERY, 2024, 63 (02) : 156 - 160
  • [4] Open versus minimally invasive ureteroneocystostomy: A population-level analysis
    Wang, Hsin-Hsiao S.
    Tejwani, Rohit
    Cannon, Glenn M., Jr.
    Gargollo, Patricio C.
    Wiener, John S.
    Routh, Jonathan C.
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC UROLOGY, 2016, 12 (04) : 232.e1 - 232.e6
  • [5] A Comparative Analysis of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomies
    Valukas, Catherine S.
    Zaza, Norah M.
    Vitello, Dominic
    Odell, David D.
    Merkow, Ryan
    Bentrem, David J.
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2024,
  • [6] Minimally invasive versus open surgery for colonic diverticular disease: a nationwide analysis of German hospital data
    Kolbe, E. W.
    Buciunas, M.
    Krieg, S.
    Loosen, S. H.
    Roderburg, C.
    Krieg, A.
    Kostev, K.
    TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2025, 29 (01)
  • [7] Retrospective Comparison of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Periampullary Neoplasms
    Bao, Philip Q.
    Mazirka, Pavel O.
    Watkins, Kevin T.
    JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2014, 18 (04) : 682 - 689
  • [8] Minimally invasive versus open laminotomy
    Tan, Lee A.
    Kasliwal, Manish K.
    Fessler, Richard G.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2014, 14 (06) : 1081 - 1082
  • [9] Minimally Invasive Versus Open McKeown for Patients with Esophageal Cancer: A Retrospective Study
    Zheng, Yan
    Li, Yin
    Liu, Xianben
    Sun, Haibo
    Shen, Sining
    Ba, Yufeng
    Wang, Zongfei
    Liu, Shilei
    Xing, Wenqun
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2021, 28 (11) : 6329 - 6336
  • [10] A Propensity Score Matched Analysis of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transthoracic Esophagectomy in the Netherlands
    Seesing, Maarten F. J.
    Gisbertz, Suzanne S.
    Goense, Lucas
    van Hillegersberg, Richard
    Kroon, Hidde M.
    Lagarde, Sjoerd M.
    Ruurda, Jelle P.
    Slaman, Annelijn E.
    Henegouwen, Mark I. van Berge
    Wijnhoven, Bas P. L.
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2017, 266 (05) : 839 - 846