ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Post-operative prescription opioid use is a known risk factor for persistent opioid use. Despite the increased utilization of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for inguinal hernia repair (IHR), little is known whether this minimally invasive approach results in less opioid consumption. In this study, we compare long-term opioid use between RAS versus laparoscopic (Lap) versus open surgery for IHR. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of opioid-naïve patients who underwent outpatient primary IHR was conducted using the Merative™ MarketScan® (Previously IBM MarketScan®) Databases between 2016 and 2020. Patients not continuously enrolled 180 days before/after surgery, who had malignancy, pre-existing chronic pain, opioid dependency, or invalid prescription fill information were excluded. Among patients exposed to opioids peri-operatively, we assessed long-term opioid use as any opioid prescription fill within 90 to 180 days post-surgery. Secondary outcomes were controlled substance schedule II/III opioid fill, and high-dose opioid fill defined as > 50 morphine milligram equivalent per day. An Inverse-probability of treatment weighted logistic regression was used to compare outcomes between groups with p-value of < 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 41,271 patients were identified (2070 (5.0%) RAS, 16,704 (40.5%) Lap, and 22,497 (54.5%) open surgery). RAS was associated with less likelihood of prescription fills for any opioid (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.98 versus Lap; OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.85 versus open), and schedule II/III opioid (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96 versus Lap; OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.88 versus open), but comparable high-dose opioid fill (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.55 versus Lap; OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.52 versus open). Lap and open surgery had no significant difference. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients derived from a national commercial claims dataset, patients undergoing RAS had a decreased risk of long-term opioid use compared to laparoscopic and open surgery patients undergoing IHR.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite widespread adoption of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in rectal cancer resection, there remains limited knowledge of its clinical advantage over laparoscopic (Lap) and open (OS) surgery. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes of RAS with Lap and OS for rectal cancer. METHODS: We identified all patients aged ≥ 18 years who had elective rectal cancer resection requiring temporary or permanent stoma formation from 1/2013 to 12/2020 from the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database. We completed multivariable logistic regression analysis accounting for hospital clustering to compare ileostomy formation between surgical approaches. Next, we built inverse probability of treatment-weighted analyses to compare outcomes for ileostomy and permanent colostomy separately. Outcomes included postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, discharge to home, reoperation, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: A total of 12,787 patients (OS: 5599 [43.8%]; Lap: 2872 [22.5%]; RAS: 4316 [33.7%]) underwent elective rectal cancer resection. Compared to OS, patients who had Lap (OR 1.29, p < 0.001) or RAS (OR 1.53, p < 0.001) were more likely to have an ileostomy rather than permanent colostomy. In those with ileostomy, RAS was associated with fewer ileus (OR 0.71, p < 0.001) and less bleeding (OR 0.50, p < 0.001) compared to Lap. In addition, RAS was associated with lower anastomotic leak (OR 0.25, p < 0.001), less bleeding (OR 0.51, p < 0.001), and fewer blood transfusions (OR 0.70, p = 0.022) when compared to OS. In those patients who had permanent colostomy formation, RAS was associated with fewer ileus (OR 0.72, p < 0.001), less bleeding (OR 0.78, p = 0.021), lower 30-day reoperation (OR 0.49, p < 0.001), and higher discharge to home (OR 1.26, p = 0.013) than Lap, as well as OS. CONCLUSION: Rectal cancer patients treated with RAS were more likely to have an ileostomy rather than a permanent colostomy and more enhanced recovery compared to Lap and OS.