Suppr超能文献

机器人辅助右半结肠切除术与体内吻合术与腹腔镜右半结肠切除术体外和体内吻合术的比较:一项回顾性多中心研究。

Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis compared with laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis: a retrospective multicentre study.

作者信息

Trastulli Stefano, Coratti Andrea, Guarino Salvatore, Piagnerelli Riccardo, Annecchiarico Mario, Coratti Francesco, Di Marino Michele, Ricci Francesco, Desiderio Jacopo, Cirocchi Roberto, Parisi Amilcare

机构信息

Department of Digestive Surgery and Liver Unit, Santa Maria Hospital, Terni, Italy,

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2015 Jun;29(6):1512-21. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3835-9. Epub 2014 Oct 11.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Growing evidence suggests that the intracorporeal fashioning of an anastomosis after a laparoscopic right colectomy may offer several advantages. However, due to the difficulty of the intracorporeal technique, laparoscopic extracorporeal confectioning of the anastomosis remains the most widely adopted technique. Although the purpose of the robotic approach was to overcome the limitations of the laparoscopic technique and to simplify the most demanding surgical procedures, such as performing an intracorporeal anastomosis, evidence is lacking that compares the robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (RRCIA) technique with both the conventional laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (LRCEA) and the laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis confectioning (LRCIA) techniques. This study aims to compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of the RRCIA to those of both the LRCEA and the LRCIA.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of two Italian centres was performed on the data on patients undergoing an RRCIA, LRCEA or LRCIA for cancer or adenomas.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-six patients (RRCIA = 102, LRCEA = 94, LRCIA = 40) met the criteria for inclusion in the study. The three groups were comparable in their demographic and baseline characteristics. No significant differences were found in the conversion to open rates, intraoperative blood loss, 30-day morbidity and mortality, number of lymphnodes harvested and other pathological characteristics. Compared with the LRCEA, the RRCIA required a longer operative time (P < 0.0001) but had better recovery outcomes, such as a shorter length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001). Compared with the LRCIA, the RRCIA had a shorter time to first flatus (P < 0.0001) but offered no advantages in terms of the length of the hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Performing the RRCIA offers significantly better perioperative recovery outcomes compared with the LRCEA, with a substantial reduction in the length of the hospital stay. The RRCIA does not offer the same advantages compared with the LRCIA.

摘要

背景

越来越多的证据表明,腹腔镜右半结肠切除术后在体内进行吻合口塑形可能具有多种优势。然而,由于体内技术难度较大,腹腔镜体外吻合口制作仍是应用最广泛的技术。尽管机器人手术的目的是克服腹腔镜技术的局限性,并简化最复杂的外科手术,如进行体内吻合,但缺乏将机器人右半结肠切除术联合体内吻合术(RRCIA)技术与传统腹腔镜右半结肠切除术联合体外吻合术(LRCEA)以及腹腔镜右半结肠切除术联合体内吻合口制作术(LRCIA)进行比较的证据。本研究旨在比较RRCIA与LRCEA和LRCIA的术中和术后结果。

方法

对两个意大利中心前瞻性维护的数据库进行回顾性分析,纳入接受RRCIA、LRCEA或LRCIA治疗癌症或腺瘤的患者数据。

结果

236例患者(RRCIA = 102例,LRCEA = 94例,LRCIA = 40例)符合纳入研究标准。三组患者的人口统计学和基线特征具有可比性。在中转开腹率、术中出血量、30天发病率和死亡率、淋巴结清扫数量及其他病理特征方面未发现显著差异。与LRCEA相比,RRCIA手术时间更长(P < 0.0001),但恢复效果更好,如住院时间更短(P < 0.0001)。与LRCIA相比,RRCIA首次排气时间更短(P < 0.0001),但在住院时间方面无优势。

结论

与LRCEA相比,实施RRCIA可显著改善围手术期恢复结果,住院时间大幅缩短。与LRCIA相比,RRCIA无相同优势。

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