Rivadeneira David E, Verdeja Juan Carlos, Sonoda Toyooki
Saint Catherine of Siena Medical Center, Smithtown, NY, USA.
Ann Surg Innov Res. 2012 Nov 13;6(1):11. doi: 10.1186/1750-1164-6-11.
The purpose of this study was to compare in human cadavers the applicability of a commonly used stapling device, the CONTOUR® curved cutter (CC) (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH) to a newly released, curved stapler, the Endo GIA™ Radial Reload with Tri-Staple™ Technology (RR) (Covidien, New Haven, CT) METHODS: Four experienced surgeons performed deep pelvic dissection with total mesorectal excision (TME) of the rectum in twelve randomized male cadavers. Both stapling devices were applied to the ultra-low rectum in coronal and sagittal configurations. Extensive measurements were recorded of anatomic landmarks for each cadaver pelvis along with various aspects of access, visibility, and ease of placement for each device.
The RR reached significantly lower into the pelvis in both the coronal and sagittal positions compared to the CC. The median distance from the pelvic floor was 1.0 cm compared to 2.0 cm in the coronal position, and 1.0 cm versus 3.3 cm placed sagitally, p < 0.0001. Surgeons gave a higher visibility rating with less visual impediment in the sagittal plane using the RR Stapler. Impediment of visibility occurred in only 10% (5/48) of RR applications in the coronal position, compared to a rate of 48% (23/48) using the CC, p = 0.0002.
The RR device performed significantly better when compared to the CC stapler in regards to placing the stapler further into the deep pelvis and closer to the pelvic floor, while causing less obstructing of visualization.
本研究旨在比较在人体尸体中常用的吻合器CONTOUR®弯形切割器(CC)(爱惜康内镜外科公司,俄亥俄州辛辛那提)与新推出的弯形吻合器Endo GIA™径向再装填三钉™技术(RR)(柯惠医疗公司,康涅狄格州纽黑文)的适用性。方法:四位经验丰富的外科医生在十二具随机选取的男性尸体上进行直肠全直肠系膜切除术(TME)的深部盆腔解剖。两种吻合器均以冠状位和矢状位应用于超低位直肠。记录了每具尸体骨盆的解剖标志的大量测量数据,以及每种器械在操作便利性、视野和放置难易程度等方面的各种情况。
与CC相比,RR在冠状位和矢状位都能更深入盆腔。冠状位时,距盆底的中位距离为1.0厘米,而CC为2.0厘米;矢状位时分别为1.0厘米和3.3厘米,p<0.0001。使用RR吻合器时,外科医生在矢状面的视野评分更高,视觉阻碍更小。冠状位使用RR时,视野阻碍仅发生在10%(5/48)的应用中,而使用CC时这一比例为48%(23/48),p = 0.0002。
与CC吻合器相比,RR器械在将吻合器放置得更深至盆腔底部且更靠近盆底方面表现明显更好,同时造成的视野阻碍更小。