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.

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted the delivery of care and timing of elective surgical procedures. Most endocrine-related operations were considered elective and safe to postpone, providing a unique opportunity to assess clinical outcomes under protracted treatment plans.

Methods

American Association of Endocrine Surgeon members were surveyed for participation. A Research Electronic Data Capture survey was developed and distributed to 27 institutions to assess the impact of COVID-19-related delays. The information collected included patient demographics, primary diagnosis, resumption of care, and assessment of disease progression by the surgeon.

Results

Twelve out of 27 institutions completed the survey (44.4%). Of 850 patients, 74.8% (636) were female; median age was 56 (interquartile range, 44-66) years. Forty percent (34) of patients had not been seen since their original surgical appointment was delayed; 86.2% (733) of patients had a delay in care with women more likely to have a delay (87.6% vs 82.2% of men, χ² = 3.84, P = .05). Median duration of delay was 70 (interquartile range, 42-118) days. Among patients with a delay in care, primary disease site included thyroid (54.2%), parathyroid (37.2%), adrenal (6.5%), and pancreatic/gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (1.3%). In addition, 4.0% (26) of patients experienced disease progression and 4.1% (24) had a change from the initial operative plan. The duration of delay was not associated with disease progression (P = .96) or a change in operative plan (P = .66).

Conclusion

Although some patients experienced disease progression during COVID-19 delays to endocrine disease-related care, most patients with follow-up did not. Our analysis indicated that temporary delay may be an acceptable course of action in extreme circumstances for most endocrine-related surgical disease.