Suppr超能文献

腹腔镜体内缝合装置的比较与分析:初步结果

Comparison and analysis of laparoscopic intracorporeal suturing devices: preliminary results.

作者信息

Pattaras J G, Smith G S, Landman J, Moore R G

机构信息

Division of Urology, Saint Louis University, St Louis Missouri 63112, USA.

出版信息

J Endourol. 2001 Mar;15(2):187-92. doi: 10.1089/089277901750134566.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

One of the most challenging aspects of laparoscopic surgery is intracorporeal suturing and knot tying. A loss of depth perception and tactile sense and visual obstruction make placing accurate and well-tied knots a difficult and time-consuming task. Two devices conceived to ease the task of suturing and knotting while presumably speeding performance are the Suture Assist (SA; Ethicon Endo-Surgery) and EndoStitch (ES; US Surgical/Tyco). We set out to objectively assess suture placement accuracy and knot speed and strength of these two suturing devices and conventional laparoscopic suturing (CS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To date, six surgeons with laparoscopic experience were trained on the three suturing techniques. A pelvic trainer was set up with a freshly marked and incised swine renal pelvis and ureter. Each surgeon placed four sutures of 2-0 polyester suture with each technique (repeated on three separate occasions) with five half-hitches for a total of 216 knots. Time, strength, and accuracy were measured for each suture/knot placement. The knot distance was then measured from the marked target using calipers and carefully dissected from the tissue. Each knot was individually tested on a Monsanto Model 10 tensiometer, whereby slippage, strength, and breakage points were determined.

RESULTS

The mean times (min:sec) and accuracy (millimeters) were as following: CS 5:08 and 0.457, ES 2:45 and 0.660, and SA 2:40 and 0.508. The difference in time was found to be statistically significant (P < 0.001), while the difference in accuracy was not. Only 182 of 216 knots were able to be included for analysis because of either a small knot lumen or device failure. Device failures necessitating intervention were encountered only with the SA, which had a misfire rate of 9.7% (7 of 72). The mean knot strength was measured at 41.1 N for CS, 57.3 N for SA, and 28.0 for ES. Knot break percentage (breakage) was calculated as 50.8% for CS, 20.7% for ES, and 95% for SA.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary results show that each of the laparoscopic suturing devices has distinct advantages over conventional intracorporeal suturing and tying. Decreased times and comparable, if not greater, knot strengths may translate into improved laparoscopic suturing/tying performance for laparoscopic intracorporeal suturing devices.

摘要

背景与目的

腹腔镜手术最具挑战性的方面之一是体内缝合与打结。深度感知和触觉丧失以及视觉阻碍使得准确放置并打好结成为一项困难且耗时的任务。两种旨在简化缝合和打结任务并可能加快操作速度的器械是缝合辅助器(SA;爱惜康内镜外科公司)和内镜缝合器(ES;美国外科/泰科公司)。我们着手客观评估这两种缝合器械以及传统腹腔镜缝合(CS)的缝合放置准确性、打结速度和结的强度。

材料与方法

迄今为止,对六位有腹腔镜经验的外科医生进行了这三种缝合技术的培训。在一个盆腔训练模型上设置了新标记并切开的猪肾盂和输尿管。每位外科医生用每种技术放置4根2-0聚酯缝线(在三个不同场合重复进行),每个结打五个半结,总共216个结。测量每次缝合/打结放置的时间、强度和准确性。然后用卡尺从标记的目标处测量结的距离,并小心地从组织中分离出来。每个结分别在孟山都10型张力计上进行测试,从而确定滑动、强度和断裂点。

结果

平均时间(分:秒)和准确性(毫米)如下:CS为5:08和0.457,ES为2:45和0.660,SA为2:40和0.508。发现时间差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.001),而准确性差异无统计学意义。由于结腔小或器械故障,216个结中只有182个能够纳入分析。仅SA出现了需要干预的器械故障,其误击率为9.7%(72个中有7个)。CS的平均结强度为41.1 N,SA为57.3 N,ES为28.0 N。CS的结断裂百分比(断裂率)为50.8%,ES为20.7%,SA为95%。

结论

初步结果表明,每种腹腔镜缝合器械相对于传统体内缝合和打结都有明显优势。时间的减少以及相当甚至更高的结强度可能转化为腹腔镜体内缝合器械的腹腔镜缝合/打结性能的改善。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验