• 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

两种子宫内膜癌分期微创方法的比较:单术者经验

Comparison of two minimally invasive approaches to endometrial cancer staging: a single-surgeon experience.

作者信息

Frey Melissa K, Lin Jeff F, Stewart Lauren E, Makaroun Lena, Panico Vinicius José Andreotti, Holcomb Kevin

出版信息

J Reprod Med. 2015 Mar-Apr;60(3-4):127-34.

PMID:25898475
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes of endometrial cancer staging procedures performed by a single surgeon utilizing traditional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic techniques.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective review of minimally invasive endometrial cancer staging performed by a single surgeon.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in operative time, blood loss, surgical complications, or length of hospitalization between laparoscopic (n = 45) and robotic-assisted (n = 77) procedures. On multivariable analysis controlling for surgical chronology, robotic assistance was independently associated with a significantly greater number of lymph nodes (23 vs. 19, p < 0.05; beta 0.163, p < 0.05). When comparing the first chronologic half of robotic-assisted surgeries to the second half, the latter had shorter operative time (208 vs. 246 min, p = 0.01) and a greater number of lymph nodes (27 vs. 19, p = 0.001). Finally, compared to the laparoscopic cases, the second half of robotic-assisted cases had a greater number of total (27 vs. 19, p < 0.001) and pelvic (23 vs. 17, p < 0.001) lymph nodes harvested.

CONCLUSION

There was a learning curve associated with robotic-assisted laparoscopic endometrial cancer staging, with decreased operative time and increased lymph node yield over time. In our study population, robotic assistance was independently associated with a greater lymph node harvest with no increase in operative time or perioperative complications.

摘要

目的

比较由单一外科医生使用传统和机器人辅助腹腔镜技术进行的子宫内膜癌分期手术的临床结果。

研究设计

对由单一外科医生进行的微创子宫内膜癌分期手术进行回顾性研究。

结果

腹腔镜手术组(n = 45)和机器人辅助手术组(n = 77)在手术时间、失血量、手术并发症或住院时间方面无显著差异。在控制手术时间顺序的多变量分析中,机器人辅助独立与显著更多的淋巴结数量相关(23个对19个,p < 0.05;β 0.163,p < 0.05)。将机器人辅助手术的前半部分与后半部分进行比较时,后半部分的手术时间更短(208分钟对246分钟,p = 0.01)且淋巴结数量更多(27个对19个,p = 0.001)。最后,与腹腔镜手术病例相比,机器人辅助手术病例的后半部分切除的总淋巴结(27个对19个,p < 0.001)和盆腔淋巴结(23个对17个,p < 0.001)更多。

结论

机器人辅助腹腔镜子宫内膜癌分期存在学习曲线,随着时间推移手术时间减少且淋巴结获取量增加。在我们的研究人群中,机器人辅助独立与更多的淋巴结获取相关,且手术时间和围手术期并发症无增加。

相似文献

1
Comparison of two minimally invasive approaches to endometrial cancer staging: a single-surgeon experience.两种子宫内膜癌分期微创方法的比较:单术者经验
J Reprod Med. 2015 Mar-Apr;60(3-4):127-34.
2
Learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy: case-matched controlled comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer.机器人辅助子宫切除术和淋巴结切除术的学习曲线和手术结果:与腹腔镜和开腹手术治疗子宫内膜癌的病例对照比较。
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010 Nov-Dec;17(6):739-48. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.07.008.
3
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.
4
[Robot assisted endometrial cancer staging - evaluation the first 100 operations and comparing the first andthe last 30 operations].[机器人辅助子宫内膜癌分期——对前100例手术的评估以及前30例与后30例手术的比较]
Ceska Gynekol. 2015 Oct;80(5):324-32.
5
Same-day discharge is feasible and safe in patients undergoing minimally invasive staging for gynecologic malignancies.在接受妇科恶性肿瘤微创分期的患者中,当天出院是可行且安全的。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Feb;212(2):186.e1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.08.010. Epub 2014 Aug 14.
6
Learning curve in concurrent application of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer.子宫内膜癌腹腔镜与机器人辅助子宫切除术联合淋巴结清扫术的学习曲线
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Dec;56(6):781-787. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2017.10.014.
7
Robotic-assisted vs traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a randomized controlled trial.机器人辅助手术与传统腹腔镜手术治疗子宫内膜癌:一项随机对照试验
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Nov;215(5):588.e1-588.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005. Epub 2016 Jun 8.
8
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.
9
Surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer are equivalent to traditional laparoscopic staging at a minimally invasive surgical center.在微创外科中心,机器人辅助手术分期治疗子宫内膜癌的手术结果与传统腹腔镜分期相当。
Gynecol Oncol. 2010 May;117(2):224-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.01.009. Epub 2010 Feb 7.
10
Comparison between 155 cases of robotic vs. 150 cases of open surgical staging for endometrial cancer.机器人与开放手术分期治疗子宫内膜癌 155 例与 150 例比较。
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Feb;124(2):260-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.09.038. Epub 2011 Oct 29.

引用本文的文献

1
Surgical Treatment for Endometrial Cancer, Hysterectomy Performed via Minimally Invasive Routes Compared with Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.子宫内膜癌的手术治疗:微创途径子宫切除术与开放手术的比较——系统评价与网状Meta分析
Cancers (Basel). 2024 May 13;16(10):1860. doi: 10.3390/cancers16101860.
2
A comparison of operative outcomes between standard and robotic laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.标准腹腔镜手术与机器人辅助腹腔镜手术治疗子宫内膜癌的手术结局比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int J Med Robot. 2017 Dec;13(4). doi: 10.1002/rcs.1851. Epub 2017 Aug 1.