• 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

相似文献

1
Robotic laparoscopic right colectomy - the burden of age and comorbidity in perioperative outcomes: An observational study.机器人辅助腹腔镜右半结肠切除术——年龄和合并症对围手术期结局的影响:一项观察性研究
World J Gastrointest Surg. 2020 Jun 27;12(6):287-297. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v12.i6.287.
2
Successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes in robotic vs laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer - a systematic review.机器人辅助与腹腔镜右半结肠切除术治疗癌症以患者为导向的成功手术结果——一项系统评价
Colorectal Dis. 2020 May;22(5):488-499. doi: 10.1111/codi.14822. Epub 2019 Sep 4.
3
Robot-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy in Octogenarians.老年患者机器人辅助与腹腔镜右半结肠切除术的比较
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2022 Apr;23(4):690-694. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2022.01.080. Epub 2022 Mar 3.
4
Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study.机器人与腹腔镜右半结肠切除术的病例对照研究。
J Robot Surg. 2022 Jun;16(3):641-647. doi: 10.1007/s11701-021-01286-5. Epub 2021 Aug 2.
5
Totally laparoscopic versus laparoscopic assisted right colectomy for cancer.全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助右半结肠癌根治术的比较。
Int J Surg. 2012;10(6):290-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2012.04.020. Epub 2012 May 4.
6
Efficacy and safety outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy in Chinese older women with cervical cancer compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.中国老年宫颈癌患者机器人根治性子宫切除术与腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术的疗效和安全性结果比较
BMC Womens Health. 2018 May 1;18(1):61. doi: 10.1186/s12905-018-0544-x.
7
Right hemicolectomy: a network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, total laparoscopic, and robotic approach.右半结肠切除术:一项比较开腹、腹腔镜辅助、全腹腔镜和机器人辅助手术方式的网络荟萃分析。
Surg Endosc. 2019 Apr;33(4):1020-1032. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6592-3. Epub 2018 Nov 19.
8
Robotic Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Population-Based Study of Adoption and Immediate Postoperative Outcomes in the United States.机器人根治性子宫切除术治疗宫颈癌:美国的一项基于人群的采用和术后即刻结局研究。
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019 Mar-Apr;26(3):551-557. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.08.012. Epub 2018 Sep 5.
9
A Comparison of Colectomy Outcomes Utilizing Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Techniques.比较开放、腹腔镜和机器人技术在结直肠切除术中的应用效果。
Am Surg. 2021 Aug;87(8):1275-1279. doi: 10.1177/0003134820973384. Epub 2020 Dec 19.
10
Robotic versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Case-Control Outcome Analysis and Surgical Resident Training Implications.机器人辅助与腹腔镜胆囊切除术:病例对照结果分析及对外科住院医师培训的启示
Cureus. 2020 Apr 11;12(4):e7641. doi: 10.7759/cureus.7641.

引用本文的文献

1
A comparative analysis of staple height used for robotic right colectomy.用于机器人辅助右半结肠切除术的吻合钉高度的比较分析。
J Robot Surg. 2025 Jun 26;19(1):327. doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02503-1.
2
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Colon Cancer: Efficacy, Safety, and Outcomes-A Focus on Studies from 2020-2024.腹腔镜手术与机器人辅助手术治疗结肠癌的系统评价和Meta分析:疗效、安全性及结局——聚焦2020年至2024年的研究
Cancers (Basel). 2024 Apr 18;16(8):1552. doi: 10.3390/cancers16081552.
3
Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review of the evidence.机器人与腹腔镜右半结肠切除术:系统评价证据。
J Robot Surg. 2024 Mar 11;18(1):116. doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-01862-5.
4
Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy outcomes in colon adenocarcinoma in the elderly population: a propensity-score matched analysis of the National Cancer Database.机器人与腹腔镜结直肠切除术治疗老年结肠癌患者的结局比较:基于国家癌症数据库的倾向评分匹配分析。
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2023 Jul 3;38(1):183. doi: 10.1007/s00384-023-04481-y.
5
A retrospective comparison of 90-day outcomes, length of stay, and readmissions between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colectomy.机器人辅助结肠切除术与腹腔镜结肠切除术90天结局、住院时间和再入院情况的回顾性比较。
J Robot Surg. 2023 Oct;17(5):2205-2209. doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01642-7. Epub 2023 Jun 5.
6
Comparison of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.机器人右半结肠切除术与腹腔镜右半结肠切除术的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Tech Coloproctol. 2023 Jul;27(7):521-535. doi: 10.1007/s10151-023-02821-2. Epub 2023 May 15.
7
Short- and Long-Term Outcome of Laparoscopic- versus Robotic-Assisted Right Colectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.腹腔镜与机器人辅助右半结肠切除术的短期和长期结果:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
J Clin Med. 2022 Apr 24;11(9):2387. doi: 10.3390/jcm11092387.

本文引用的文献

1
Perioperative lymphocytopenia predicts mortality and severe complications after intestinal surgery.围手术期淋巴细胞减少可预测肠道手术后的死亡率和严重并发症。
Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(14):311. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.06.46.
2
The Current Role of Robotics in Colorectal Surgery.机器人技术在结直肠手术中的当前作用。
Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2019 Mar 6;21(3):11. doi: 10.1007/s11894-019-0676-7.
3
Right hemicolectomy: a network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, total laparoscopic, and robotic approach.右半结肠切除术:一项比较开腹、腹腔镜辅助、全腹腔镜和机器人辅助手术方式的网络荟萃分析。
Surg Endosc. 2019 Apr;33(4):1020-1032. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6592-3. Epub 2018 Nov 19.
4
The ALCCaS Trial: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Quality of Life Following Laparoscopic Versus Open Colectomy for Colon Cancer.ALCCaS 试验:腹腔镜与开腹结肠癌根治术治疗结肠癌后生活质量的随机对照试验。
Dis Colon Rectum. 2018 Oct;61(10):1156-1162. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001165.
5
2017 WSES guidelines on colon and rectal cancer emergencies: obstruction and perforation.2017 WSES 指南:结直肠肿瘤急症处理——梗阻和穿孔。
World J Emerg Surg. 2018 Aug 13;13:36. doi: 10.1186/s13017-018-0192-3. eCollection 2018.
6
Safety of Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer in Patients with Severe Comorbidities.重度合并症患者行腹腔镜结直肠癌手术的安全性
Anticancer Res. 2018 Jun;38(6):3767-3772. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.12659.
7
Achieving high quality standards in laparoscopic colon resection for cancer: A Delphi consensus-based position paper.实现腹腔镜结肠癌切除术的高质量标准:基于德尔菲共识的立场文件。
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018 Apr;44(4):469-483. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.01.091.
8
Recovery after intracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.腹腔镜右半结肠切除术中体内吻合术后的恢复:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2018 Feb;403(1):1-10. doi: 10.1007/s00423-017-1645-y. Epub 2017 Dec 12.
9
Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.机器人与腹腔镜右半结肠切除术:一项更新的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Surg Endosc. 2018 Mar;32(3):1104-1110. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5980-4. Epub 2017 Dec 7.
10
Age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index score as predictor of survival of patients with digestive system cancer who have undergone surgical resection.年龄校正的查尔森合并症指数评分作为接受手术切除的消化系统癌症患者生存情况的预测指标。
Oncotarget. 2017 Jun 7;8(45):79453-79461. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.18401. eCollection 2017 Oct 3.

机器人辅助腹腔镜右半结肠切除术——年龄和合并症对围手术期结局的影响:一项观察性研究

Robotic laparoscopic right colectomy - the burden of age and comorbidity in perioperative outcomes: An observational study.

作者信息

Tagliabue Fulvio, Burati Morena, Chiarelli Marco, Fumagalli Luca, Guttadauro Angelo, Arborio Elisa, De Simone Matilde, Cioffi Ugo

机构信息

Department of Robotic and Emergency Surgery, Ospedale A. Manzoni, ASST Lecco, Lecco 23900, Italy.

Department of Surgery, University of Milan-Bicocca, Istituti Clinici Zucchi, Monza 20900, Italy.

出版信息

World J Gastrointest Surg. 2020 Jun 27;12(6):287-297. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v12.i6.287.

DOI:10.4240/wjgs.v12.i6.287
PMID:32774767
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7385514/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Several studies have shown the safety, feasibility and oncologic adequacy of robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH). Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) is considered technically challenging. Robotic surgery has been introduced to overcome this technical limitation, but it is related to high costs. To maximize the benefits of such surgery, only selected patients are candidates for this technique. In addition, due to progressive aging of the population, an increasing number of minimally invasive procedures are performed on elderly patients with severe comorbidities, who are usually more prone to post-operative complications.

AIM

To investigate the outcomes of RRH LRH with regard to age and comorbidities.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 123 minimally invasive procedures (68 LRHs 55 RRHs) for right colon cancer or endoscopically unresectable adenoma performed in our Center from January 2014 until September 2019. The surgical procedures were performed according to standardized techniques. The primary clinical outcome of the study was the length of hospital stay (LOS) measured in days. Secondary outcomes were time to first flatus (TFF) and time to first stool evacuation. The robotic technique was considered the exposure and the laparoscopic technique was considered the control. Routine demographic variables were obtained, including age at time of surgery and gender. Body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status were registered. The age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI) was calculated; the tumor-node-metastasis system, intra-operative variables and post-operative complications were recorded. Post-operative follow-up was 180 d.

RESULTS

LOS, TFF, and time to first stool were significantly shorter in the robotic group: Median 6 [interquartile range (IQR) 5-8] 7 (IQR 6-10.5) d, = 0.028; median 2 (IQR 1-3) 3 (IQR 2-4) d, < 0.001; median 4 (IQR 3-5) 5 (IQR 4-6.5) d, = 0.005, respectively. Following multivariable analysis, the robotic technique was confirmed to be predictive of significantly shorter hospitalization and faster restoration of bowel function; in addition the dichotomous variables of age over 75 years and ACCI more than 7 were significant predictors of hospital stay. No outcomes were significantly associated with Clavien-Dindo grading. Sub-group analysis demonstrated that patients aged over 75 years had a longer LOS (median 6 -IQR 5-8- 7 -IQR 6-12- d, = 0.013) and later TFF (median 2 -IQR 1-3- 3 -IQR 2-4- d, = 0.008), while patients with ACCI more than 7 were only associated with a prolonged hospital stay (median 7 -IQR 5-8- 7 -IQR 6-14.5- d, = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

RRH is related to shorter LOS when compared with the laparoscopic approach, but older age and several comorbidities tend to reduce its benefits.

摘要

背景

多项研究已证实机器人辅助右半结肠切除术(RRH)的安全性、可行性及肿瘤学疗效。腹腔镜右半结肠切除术(LRH)在技术上具有挑战性。引入机器人手术是为了克服这一技术限制,但它成本高昂。为使此类手术的益处最大化,仅特定患者适合该技术。此外,由于人口老龄化加剧,越来越多的老年重症合并症患者接受微创手术,这类患者通常更易出现术后并发症。

目的

探讨RRH和LRH在年龄及合并症方面的手术效果。

方法

我们回顾性分析了2014年1月至2019年9月在本中心进行的123例针对右结肠癌或内镜下不可切除腺瘤的微创手术(68例LRH和55例RRH)。手术按照标准化技术进行。本研究的主要临床结局是以天数衡量的住院时间(LOS)。次要结局为首次排气时间(TFF)和首次排便时间。将机器人技术组视为暴露组,腹腔镜技术组视为对照组。获取常规人口统计学变量,包括手术时的年龄和性别。记录体重指数和美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分级。计算年龄调整后的Charlson合并症指数(ACCI);记录肿瘤-淋巴结-转移系统、术中变量及术后并发症。术后随访180天。

结果

机器人手术组的LOS、TFF和首次排便时间显著更短:中位数分别为6天[四分位间距(IQR)5 - 8天]对比LRH组的7天(IQR 6 - 10.5天),P = 0.028;中位数2天(IQR 1 - 3天)对比3天(IQR 2 - 4天),P < 0.001;中位数4天(IQR 3 - 5天)对比5天(IQR 4 - 6.5天),P = 0.005。多变量分析后,证实机器人技术可显著预测住院时间更短及肠功能恢复更快;此外,年龄超过75岁和ACCI大于7的二分变量是住院时间的显著预测因素。无结局与Clavien-Dindo分级显著相关。亚组分析表明,年龄超过75岁的患者LOS更长(中位数6天 - IQR为5 - 8天对比7天 - IQR为6 - 12天,P = 0.013)且TFF更晚(中位数2天 - IQR为1 - 3天对比3天 - IQR为2 - 4天,P = 0.008),而ACCI大于7的患者仅与住院时间延长相关(中位数7天 - IQR为5 - 8天对比7天 - IQR为6 - 14.5天,P = 0.036)。

结论

与腹腔镜手术相比,RRH的住院时间更短,但高龄和多种合并症往往会降低其优势。