Suppr超能文献

退伍军人患者良性胆囊疾病的机器人和腹腔镜胆囊切除术的结果。

Outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease in Veteran patients.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.

VA North Texas Health Care System, 4500 S. Lancaster Road, Surgical Service (112), Dallas, TX, 75216, USA.

出版信息

J Robot Surg. 2021 Dec;15(6):849-857. doi: 10.1007/s11701-020-01183-3. Epub 2021 Jan 5.

Abstract

The robotic platform for cholecystectomy has been extensively studied in comparison to its laparoscopic counterpart with acceptable outcomes. However, wide acceptance of a robotic approach to cholecystectomy has been limited by increased operative room (OR) times and substantially higher cost. This is a single-institution retrospective review of Veteran patients presenting for elective laparoscopic (LC) and robotic (RC) cholecystectomies for benign biliary disease at the Dallas VA Medical Center. The primary goal was to interrogate 30-day morbidity as well as operative room times, estimated blood loss (EBL), hospital length of stay (LOS), and conversion rates. The entire cohort included 612 patients (age = 55.1 ± 12.9 years, men = 77.9%, BMI = 31.2 ± 6.3 kg/m) undergoing elective cholecystectomy (LC = 441 and RC = 171) for benign biliary disease (biliary colic = 78.8%, history of biliary pancreatitis = 7.8%, history of cholecystitis = 5.7%). Univariate analysis comparing LC and RC showed the two groups to be of similar age (55.4 ± 12.4 vs. 54.4 ± 14.2 years; p = 0.4), male gender (79.4% vs. 74.3%, p = 0.2), and BMI (31.1 ± 6.4 vs. 31.5 ± 6.3 kg/m; p = 0.5). Except for dyslipidemia (LC = 48.3% vs. RC = 36.8%; p = 0.01), both groups had the same rate of co-morbid conditions. ASA level III and IV (LC = 60.1 vs. RC = 69.0%, p = 0.04) was higher in the RC group. Both groups underwent surgical intervention for similar indications (biliary colic LC = 80.5% vs. RC = 74.3; p = 0.1). Hospital LOS (1.7 ± 3.2 vs. 0.3 ± 0.9 days, p < 0.001), EBL (32.3 ± 52.3 vs. 17.0 ± 43.1; p = 0.001), and conversion to open (6.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.001) were all superior with the robotic platform. Thirty-day overall morbidity (9.8% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.4), skin-to-skin OR time (84.5 ± 33.5 vs. 88.0 ± 35.3 min, p = 0.2), and total OR time (129.2 ± 36.8 vs. 129.7 ± 39.7, p = 0.9) were similar between the LC and RC groups. Despite being older and having more comorbidities, Veteran patients undergoing robotic cholecystectomy experienced equivalent OR time and a moderate improvement in conversion rate, EBL, and hospital LOS compared to those undergoing conventional laparoscopy, therein demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the robotic platform for this patient population.

摘要

胆囊切除术的机器人平台与腹腔镜相比已经进行了广泛的研究,结果可以接受。然而,由于手术时间延长和成本大幅增加,机器人胆囊切除术的广泛接受受到限制。这是达拉斯退伍军人事务医疗中心对接受择期腹腔镜 (LC) 和机器人 (RC) 胆囊切除术治疗良性胆道疾病的退伍军人患者进行的单机构回顾性研究。主要目标是检查 30 天发病率以及手术时间、估计失血量 (EBL)、住院时间 (LOS) 和转化率。整个队列包括 612 名患者 (年龄 = 55.1 ± 12.9 岁,男性 = 77.9%,BMI = 31.2 ± 6.3 kg/m),因良性胆道疾病 (胆绞痛 = 78.8%,胆源性胰腺炎史 = 7.8%,胆囊炎史 = 5.7%) 接受择期胆囊切除术 (LC = 441 例,RC = 171 例)。LC 和 RC 组的单变量分析显示,两组的年龄 (55.4 ± 12.4 岁 vs. 54.4 ± 14.2 岁;p = 0.4)、男性比例 (79.4% vs. 74.3%,p = 0.2) 和 BMI (31.1 ± 6.4 公斤/米 vs. 31.5 ± 6.3 公斤/米;p = 0.5) 相似。除了血脂异常 (LC = 48.3% vs. RC = 36.8%;p = 0.01),两组的合并症发生率相同。ASA 分级 III 和 IV (LC = 60.1% vs. RC = 69.0%,p = 0.04) 在 RC 组更高。两组均因相似的适应证接受手术干预 (胆绞痛 LC = 80.5% vs. RC = 74.3%;p = 0.1)。住院时间 (LOS) (1.7 ± 3.2 天 vs. 0.3 ± 0.9 天,p < 0.001)、EBL (32.3 ± 52.3 毫升 vs. 17.0 ± 43.1 毫升,p = 0.001) 和中转开腹 (6.6% vs. 0.6%,p = 0.001) 均优于机器人平台。30 天总发病率 (9.8% vs. 12.3%,p = 0.4)、皮肤对皮肤的手术时间 (84.5 ± 33.5 分钟 vs. 88.0 ± 35.3 分钟,p = 0.2) 和总手术时间 (129.2 ± 36.8 分钟 vs. 129.7 ± 39.7 分钟,p = 0.9) 在 LC 和 RC 组之间相似。尽管年龄较大且合并症更多,但与接受传统腹腔镜手术的患者相比,接受机器人胆囊切除术的退伍军人患者的手术时间相似,且转化率、EBL 和住院时间适度改善,从而证明了该患者人群机器人平台的安全性和有效性。

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