Suppr超能文献

社区医院子宫切除术微创外科手术方法的比较:机器人辅助腹腔镜子宫切除术、腹腔镜辅助阴道子宫切除术和腹腔镜次全子宫切除术。

Comparison of minimally invasive surgical approaches for hysterectomy at a community hospital: robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy.

作者信息

Giep Bang N, Giep Hoang N, Hubert Helen B

出版信息

J Robot Surg. 2010 Sep;4(3):167-75. doi: 10.1007/s11701-010-0206-y. Epub 2010 Aug 10.

Abstract

The study reported here compares outcomes of three approaches to minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign indications, namely, robotic-assisted laparoscopic (RALH), laparoscopic-assisted vaginal (LAVH) and laparoscopic supracervical (LSH) hysterectomy. The total patient cohort comprised the first 237 patients undergoing robotic surgeries at our hospital between August 2007 and June 2009; the last 100 patients undergoing LAVH by the same surgeons between July 2006 and February 2008 and 165 patients undergoing LAVHs performed by nine surgeons between January 2008 and June 2009; 87 patients undergoing LSH by the same nine surgeons between January 2008 and June 2009. Among the RALH patients were cases of greater complexity: (1) higher prevalence of prior abdominopelvic surgery than that found among LAVH patients; (2) an increased number of procedures for endometriosis and pelvic reconstruction. Uterine weights also were greater in RALH patients [207.4 vs. 149.6 (LAVH; P < 0.001) and 141.1 g (LSH; P = 0.005)]. Despite case complexity, operative time was significantly lower in RALH than in LAVH (89.9 vs. 124.8 min, P < 0.001) and similar to that in LSH (89.6 min). Estimated blood loss was greater in LAVH (167.9 ml) than in RALH (59.0 ml, P < 0.001) or LSH (65.7 ml, P < 0.001). Length of hospital stay was shorter for RALH than for LAVH or LSH. Conversion and complication rates were low and similar across procedures. Multivariable regression indicated that LAVH, obesity, uterine weight ≥250 g and older age predicted significantly longer operative time. The learning curve for RALH demonstrated improved operative time over the case series. Our findings show the benefits of RALH over LAVH. Outcomes in RALH can be as good as or better than those in LSH, suggesting the latter should be the choice primarily for women desiring cervix-sparing surgery.

摘要

本研究比较了三种针对良性指征的微创子宫切除术的效果,即机器人辅助腹腔镜子宫切除术(RALH)、腹腔镜辅助阴式子宫切除术(LAVH)和腹腔镜次全子宫切除术(LSH)。患者总队列包括2007年8月至2009年6月在我院接受机器人手术的前237例患者;2006年7月至2008年2月由同一组外科医生进行LAVH手术的最后100例患者,以及2008年1月至2009年6月由9名外科医生进行LAVH手术的165例患者;2008年1月至2009年6月由同一9名外科医生进行LSH手术的87例患者。RALH组患者的病情更为复杂:(1)既往腹盆腔手术的发生率高于LAVH组患者;(2)子宫内膜异位症和盆腔重建手术的数量增加。RALH组患者的子宫重量也更大[分别为207.4 g与149.6 g(LAVH组;P<0.001)和141.1 g(LSH组;P=0.005)]。尽管病例复杂,但RALH组的手术时间显著低于LAVH组(89.9分钟对124.8分钟,P<0.001),与LSH组相似(89.6分钟)。LAVH组的估计失血量(167.9 ml)大于RALH组(59.0 ml,P<0.001)或LSH组(65.7 ml,P<0.001)。RALH组的住院时间短于LAVH组或LSH组。各组的中转率和并发症发生率较低且相似。多变量回归分析表明,LAVH、肥胖、子宫重量≥250 g和年龄较大是手术时间显著延长的预测因素。RALH组的学习曲线显示,随着病例数增加,手术时间有所改善。我们的研究结果显示了RALH相对于LAVH的优势。RALH的效果可与LSH相当或更好,这表明对于希望保留宫颈的女性,LSH应作为首选手术方式。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fd2d/2931763/f54c7f6a556f/11701_2010_206_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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