• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

机器人根治性子宫切除术:与腹腔镜手术和剖腹手术的比较。

Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy.

作者信息

Magrina Javier F, Kho Rosanne M, Weaver Amy L, Montero Regina P, Magtibay Paul M

机构信息

Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 East Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, Arizona 85054, USA.

出版信息

Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Apr;109(1):86-91. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.01.011. Epub 2008 Feb 14.

DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.01.011
PMID:18279944
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Comparison of perioperative results of patients undergoing radical hysterectomy by robotics, laparoscopy, and laparotomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective analysis of 27 patients undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy between April 2003 and September 2006. Comparison was made with patients operated by laparoscopy and laparotomy matched by age, BMI, site and type of malignancy, FIGO staging, and type of radical hysterectomy.

RESULTS

The mean operating times for patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopy and laparotomy radical hysterectomy were 189.6, 220.4, and 166.8 min, respectively; the mean blood loss was 133.1, 208.4, and 443.6 ml, respectively; the mean rate of blood loss was 0.7, 0.9, and 2.6 ml/min, respectively; the mean number of removed lymph nodes was 25.9, 25.9, and 27.7, respectively; and the mean length of hospital stay was 1.7, 2.4, and 3.6 days, respectively. There were no significant differences in intra- or postoperative complications among the three groups, no fistula formation in any patient and no conversions in the robotic or laparoscopic groups. At a mean follow up of 31.1 months, none of the patients with cervical cancer has experienced recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy and robotics are preferable to laparotomy for patients requiring radical hysterectomy. Operating times for robotics and laparotomy were similar, and significantly shorter as compared to laparoscopy. Blood loss, rate of blood loss and length of hospital stay were similar for laparoscopy and robotics and significantly reduced as compared to laparotomy.

摘要

目的

比较接受机器人辅助根治性子宫切除术、腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术和开腹根治性子宫切除术患者的围手术期结果。

研究设计

对2003年4月至2006年9月期间接受机器人辅助根治性子宫切除术的27例患者进行前瞻性分析。与年龄、体重指数、恶性肿瘤部位和类型、国际妇产科联盟(FIGO)分期以及根治性子宫切除术类型相匹配的接受腹腔镜手术和开腹手术的患者进行比较。

结果

接受机器人辅助、腹腔镜和开腹根治性子宫切除术患者的平均手术时间分别为189.6分钟、220.4分钟和166.8分钟;平均失血量分别为133.1毫升、208.4毫升和443.6毫升;平均失血率分别为0.7毫升/分钟、0.9毫升/分钟和2.6毫升/分钟;平均切除淋巴结数分别为25.9个、25.9个和27.7个;平均住院时间分别为1.7天、2.4天和3.6天。三组患者术中或术后并发症无显著差异,所有患者均未形成瘘管,机器人辅助组或腹腔镜组均无中转开腹情况。平均随访31.1个月,所有宫颈癌患者均未复发。

结论

对于需要进行根治性子宫切除术的患者,腹腔镜手术和机器人辅助手术优于开腹手术。机器人辅助手术和开腹手术的手术时间相似,且与腹腔镜手术相比明显更短。腹腔镜手术和机器人辅助手术的失血量、失血率和住院时间相似,且与开腹手术相比显著减少。

相似文献

1
Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy.机器人根治性子宫切除术:与腹腔镜手术和剖腹手术的比较。
Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Apr;109(1):86-91. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.01.011. Epub 2008 Feb 14.
2
A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy.机器人根治性子宫切除术联合淋巴结清扫术与腹腔镜手术及开腹手术的病例对照分析。
Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Jun;113(3):357-61. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.03.009. Epub 2009 Apr 5.
3
A multi-institutional experience with robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.早期宫颈癌机器人辅助根治性子宫切除术的多机构经验。
Gynecol Oncol. 2009 May;113(2):191-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.01.018. Epub 2009 Feb 26.
4
Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques.通过传统剖腹术、标准腹腔镜检查和机器人技术进行子宫内膜癌分期的结果与成本比较。
Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Dec;111(3):407-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.022. Epub 2008 Oct 1.
5
Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: Robotics or laparoscopy?子宫内膜癌的微创综合手术分期:机器人手术还是腹腔镜手术?
Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Apr;113(1):36-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.005. Epub 2009 Jan 24.
6
Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy using pulsed bipolar system: comparison with conventional bipolar electrosurgery.使用脉冲双极系统的腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术:与传统双极电外科手术的比较。
Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Jun;105(3):620-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.01.029. Epub 2007 Feb 15.
7
A comparison of laparascopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and radical abdominal hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer.腹腔镜辅助根治性阴道子宫切除术与根治性腹式子宫切除术治疗宫颈癌的比较
Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Jun;93(3):588-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.04.003.
8
Robotic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical carcinoma: a pilot study.机器人辅助宫颈癌根治性子宫切除术联合盆腔淋巴结清扫术:一项初步研究。
Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Feb;108(2):312-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.10.015. Epub 2007 Nov 26.
9
Robotic radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical carcinoma patients, comparing results with total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy cases. The future is now?早期宫颈癌患者的机器人根治性子宫切除术,与全腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术病例的结果比较。未来已来?
Int J Med Robot. 2007 Sep;3(3):224-8. doi: 10.1002/rcs.152.
10
A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice.全腹腔镜子宫切除术与机器人辅助子宫切除术的比较:社区实践中的手术结果
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008 May-Jun;15(3):286-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.01.008. Epub 2008 Mar 6.

引用本文的文献

1
A Minimally Invasive Treatment Approach for Early-Stage Uterine Cervical Cancer: The Impact of the LACC Trial and a Literature Review.早期子宫颈癌的微创治疗方法:LACC试验的影响及文献综述
Medicina (Kaunas). 2025 Mar 28;61(4):620. doi: 10.3390/medicina61040620.
2
Outcomes and patterns of recurrence of robot‑assisted or laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early‑stage cervical cancer.早期宫颈癌机器人辅助或腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术的复发结局与模式
Mol Clin Oncol. 2025 Mar 20;22(5):43. doi: 10.3892/mco.2025.2838. eCollection 2025 May.
3
Initial experience with the Carina™ platform in robotic-assisted hysterectomy for gynecological malignant disease.
Carina™平台在妇科恶性疾病机器人辅助子宫切除术中的初步经验。
Surg Endosc. 2025 Apr;39(4):2346-2353. doi: 10.1007/s00464-025-11588-6. Epub 2025 Feb 18.
4
Feasibility and early oncologic outcomes of Total Intracorporeal Robotic Radical Hysterectomy with Vaginal Cerclage (TIRRHVC) for the treatment of clinical stage IB cervical cancer: A tumor containment technique.经阴道环扎的全腹腔镜机器人根治性子宫切除术治疗临床ⅠB期宫颈癌的可行性及早期肿瘤学结局:一种肿瘤封闭技术
Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2024 Jun 22;54:101437. doi: 10.1016/j.gore.2024.101437. eCollection 2024 Aug.
5
Efficacy and safety of robotic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis.与腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术相比,机器人根治性子宫切除术治疗宫颈癌的疗效和安全性:一项荟萃分析。
Front Oncol. 2024 May 15;14:1303165. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1303165. eCollection 2024.
6
Comparison of survival outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early-stage cervical cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis.机器人与腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术治疗早期宫颈癌的生存结局比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Gynecol Oncol. 2024 Jan;35(1):e9. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2024.35.e9. Epub 2023 Sep 25.
7
Effect of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery on postoperative wound infection in patients with cervical cancer: A meta-analysis.机器人手术与腹腔镜手术对宫颈癌患者术后伤口感染的影响:一项荟萃分析。
Int Wound J. 2023 Oct 18;21(2). doi: 10.1111/iwj.14437.
8
A multicenter noninferior randomized controlled study comparing the efficacy of laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer (stage IB3 and IIA2): study protocol of the LAUNCH 3 trial.多中心非劣效随机对照研究比较腹腔镜与经腹根治性子宫切除术治疗宫颈癌(IB3 期和 IIA2 期)的疗效:LAUNCH 3 试验研究方案。
Trials. 2023 Aug 18;24(1):542. doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07573-w.
9
Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术的荟萃分析,不包括机器人辅助与开放式根治性子宫切除术治疗早期宫颈癌。
Sci Rep. 2023 Jan 6;13(1):273. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-27430-9.
10
Evaluation of Surgical Approaches and Use of Adjuvant Radiotherapy with Respect to Oncologic Outcomes in the Management of Clinically Early-Stage Cervical Carcinoma.评价手术方法和辅助放疗在临床早期宫颈癌治疗中的肿瘤学结果。
Curr Oncol. 2022 Dec 5;29(12):9525-9534. doi: 10.3390/curroncol29120748.