首页> 外文期刊>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology >A Comparison of Quality Outcome Measures in Patients Having a Hysterectomy for Benign Disease: Robotic vs. Non-robotic Approaches
【24h】

A Comparison of Quality Outcome Measures in Patients Having a Hysterectomy for Benign Disease: Robotic vs. Non-robotic Approaches

机译:良性子宫切除术患者质量结果指标的比较:机器人方法与非机器人方法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Study Objective: To measure procedure-related hospital readmissions within 30 days after discharge for patients who have a hysterectomy for benign disease. Secondary outcome quality measures evaluated were cost, estimated blood loss, length of stay and sum of costs associated with readmissions. Design: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting: Academic community hospital. Patients: Patients who underwent hysterectomy to treat benign disease from January 2008 to December 2012. Interventions: Patients were grouped according to route of hysterectomy: robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (robotic), laparoscopic hysterectomy (laparoscopic), abdominal hysterectomy (open via laparotomy), and vaginal hysterectomy (vaginal). Measurements and Main Results: Inclusion criteria were met by 2554 patients: 601 in the robotic group, 427 in the laparoscopic group, 1194 in the abdominal group, and 332 in the vaginal group. Readmission rates in the robotic cohort were significantly less (p<.05) than in non-robotic cohorts: Robotic (1%), laparoscopic (2.5%), open (3.5%), vaginal (2.4%). Estimated blood loss, length of stay, and sum of readmission costs were also significantly less in the robotic cohort (p<.05) compared with the other 3 cohorts. Conclusion: Patients who undergo robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy have a significantly lower chance of readmission <30 days after surgery compared with those who undergo laparoscopic, abdominal (open) hysterectomy, and vaginal approaches. Patients in the robotics cohort also experienced a shorter length of stay, less estimated blood loss, and a cost savings associated with readmissions when compared to non-robotic approaches. Prospective registries describing quality outcomes, total sum of costs including 30 days follow-up, as well as patient-related quality of life benefits are recommended to confirm these findings and determine which surgical route offers the highest patient and societal value.
机译:研究目的:测量因良性子宫切除术的患者出院后30天内与手术相关的住院再入院率。评估的次要结局质量指标包括费用,估计的失血量,住院时间和与再入院相关的费用总和。设计:回顾性队列研究(加拿大工作组分类II-2)。地点:学术社区医院。患者:2008年1月至2012年12月接受子宫切除术治疗良性疾病的患者。干预措施:按照子宫切除术的路线对患者进行分组:机器人辅助腹腔镜子宫切除术(机器人),腹腔镜子宫切除术(腹腔镜),腹部子宫切除术(通过剖腹术)和阴道子宫切除术(阴道)。测量和主要结果:2554例患者符合纳入标准:机器人组601例,腹腔镜组427例,腹部组1194例,阴道组332例。机器人队列的再入院率显着低于非机器人队列(p <.05):机器人(1%),腹腔镜(2.5%),开放(3.5%),阴道(2.4%)。与其他3个队列相比,机器人队列的估计失血量,住院时间和再入院总费用也显着减少(p <.05)。结论:与接受腹腔镜,腹腔(子宫)子宫切除术和阴道入路的患者相比,接受机器人辅助腹腔镜子宫切除术的患者在术后30天内再次入院的机会明显更低。与非机器人方法相比,机器人队列中的患者还具有较短的住院时间,较少的失血量以及与再入院相关的费用节省。建议描述质量结果,包括30天随访在内的总费用总和以及与患者相关的生活质量收益的前瞻性注册机构,以证实这些发现并确定哪种手术途径可提供最高的患者和社会价值。

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