- 快捷导航 |
| 训练用单针/双针带线【出售】--> | 外科训练模块总目录 | 0.5、1、2、3.5、5mm仿生血管 | 仿生体 - 胸腹一体式腹腔镜模拟训练器 |
| 仿气腹/半球形腹腔镜模拟训练器 | [单端多孔折叠]腹腔镜模拟训练器 | 「训练教具器械汇总」 | 管理员微信/QQ12087382[问题反馈] |
| 单点机器人胆囊切除与单切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术临床疗效的比较研究 Comparison study of clinical outcomes between single-site robotic cholecystectomy and single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy
摘要 BACKGROUND: 背景： Multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard surgical procedure for symptomatic gallbladder diseases. The latest evolution is single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC). Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) overcomes several limitations of manual SILC. The aim of this study is to present our initial experiences in SSRC and to compare its clinical outcomes with those of SILC. 多端口腹腔镜胆囊切除术是治疗胆囊疾病的标准手术。最新的发展是单切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术（SILC）。单点机器人胆囊切除术（SSRC）克服了人工SILC一些局限性。本研究的目的是在研究提出我们的初步经验，比较其临床疗效与SILC。 METHODS: 方法: This study retrospectively reviewed data for patients who received SSRC or SILC from February 2014 to September 2015. The following variables were analyzed: age, sex, body mass index, indications, pain scale, length of stay, and complications. The data were analyzed with Student t test or by Fisher exact test. 本研究回顾性分析了2014年二月至2015年九月的单点机器人胆囊切除术或单切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术的患者的数据。对以下变量进行了分析：年龄，性别，身体质量指数，适应症，疼痛量表，住院时间，并发症。对所得数据进行Student t检验或Fisher精确检验。 RESULTS: 结果: The analysis included 51 SSRC (33 women, 18 men) and 63 SILC patients (40 women, 23 men). Patients in both groups had similar demographic features and indications for surgery. The SSRC group required no conversions to conventional laparoscopy and no additional trocars, whereas the SILC group had two (3.17%) cases. Length of stay did not significantly differ between the SSRC and SILC groups (4.29 ± 0.72 vs. 4.13 ± 0.93 days, respectively; p = 0.823). However, the SSRC group had shorter operative time (71.30 ± 48.88 vs. 74.70 ± 30.16 minutes; p = 0.772), less perioperative bile spillage (9.81% vs. 19.05%; p = 0.189), and less postoperative bile leakage (0% vs. 3.17%; p = 0.501). However, the parameters mentioned above were not statistically significant, whereas pain scale scores were significantly lower in the SSRC group (2.11 ± 0.76 vs. 3.98 ± 0.84; p < 0.01). 分析包括51个单站点机器人胆囊切除术（33例女性，18名男性）和63个单切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者（40名女性，23名男性）。这两个群体的患者有类似的人口特征和手术指征。单站点机器人胆囊切除组无需转换为传统的腹腔镜手术并没有额外的孔，而单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术组有两（3.17%）例。单点机器人胆囊切除术与单切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术组术后住院时间无显著性差异（4.29 ± 0.72 vs. 4.13 ± 0.93 天，分别； p = 0.823）。然而，单一的现场机器人胆囊切除术组手术时间短（71.30±48.88 vs. 74.70±30.16分钟；P = 0.772），围手术期胆汁溢出（9.81% vs. 19.05%; p = 0.189）、和较少的术后胆漏（0% vs. 3.17%; p = 0.501）。然而，上述参数无统计学意义，而疼痛量表评分显著降低，单站点机器人胆囊切除术组（2.11 ± 0.76 vs. 3.98 ± 0.84; p < 0.01）。 CONCLUSIONS: 结论： Both SSRC and SILC are safe and feasible procedures for performing single incision cholecystectomy. SSRC, however, has the advantage of significantly decreased postoperative pain. 单点机器人胆囊切除术和单切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术是一种安全可行的单切口胆囊切除术的手术方法。单站点机器人胆囊切除术，无论如何，有显着降低术后疼痛的优势。 原文： |
