Suppr超能文献

首次比较两种单切口机器人骶骨阴道固定术的报告:使用达芬奇 Xi 或 Si 系统的单点和使用达芬奇 SP 系统的单端口。

First report comparing the two types of single-incision robotic sacrocolpopexy: Single site using the da Vinci Xi or Si system and single port using the da Vinci SP system.

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Songdo Herv Women Clinic, Incheon, Republic of Korea.

出版信息

Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jan;60(1):60-65. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2020.10.007.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The gold standard procedure for treating patients with apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is sacrocolpopexy. However, no report comparing the two types of single-incision robotic sacrocolpopexy, namely, single-site robotic sacrocolpopexy (SS-RSC) and single-port robotic sacrocolpopexy (SP-RSC) exists. Therefore, we compared the safety and effectiveness of SS-RSC and SP-RSC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, 48 patients who underwent single-incision RSC, 40 non-consecutive patients who underwent SS-RSC, and 8 consecutive patients who underwent SP-RSC for symptomatic POP quantification stage III-IV and were eligible for the 1-year follow-up (FU) were included. We compared the surgical time and operative outcomes of SS-RSC and SP-RSC. We also compared the data of the initial 8 cases in each group.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 59.2 ± 11.0 years and 66.1 ± 8.0 years in the SS-RSC (n = 40) and SP-RSC (n = 8) groups, respectively. The mean operative time (OT) and console time were comparable between the SS-RSC and SP-RSC groups (135.3 ± 31.6 min vs 141.8 ± 23.5 min; 94.6 ± 32.2 min vs 89 ± 9.5 min, respectively). The docking time and cervix suturing time were short in the SP-RSC group (P < 0.05). However, in the analysis of the initial 8 cases in each group, all surgical times except the cervix suturing time were shorter in the SP-RSC group (P < 0.05). Three cases had intraoperative bladder injury (two [5.0%] in the SS-RSC and one [12.5%] in the SP-RSC group). Two cases (5.0%) had umbilical incisional hernia in the SS-RSC group. Two cases had vaginal mesh erosion on the posterior vaginal wall, with 1 case in each group. One case (2.5%) experienced a recurrence of POP; an anterior compartment POP-Q stage 2 following SS-RSC at the 4-week FU.

CONCLUSION

Single-incision RSC, both SS-RSC and SP-RSC, is a feasible and effective surgical option for treating symptomatic apical POP with an aesthetic finish.

摘要

目的

治疗 apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) 患者的金标准手术是 sacrocolpopexy。然而,目前尚无比较两种单切口机器人 sacrocolpopexy 手术,即单部位机器人 sacrocolpopexy (SS-RSC) 和单端口机器人 sacrocolpopexy (SP-RSC) 的报道。因此,我们比较了 SS-RSC 和 SP-RSC 的安全性和有效性。

材料和方法

本研究纳入了 48 例行单切口机器人 sacrocolpopexy、40 例非连续行 SS-RSC 和 8 例连续行 SP-RSC 的患者,这些患者的症状性 POP 定量 III-IV 期且符合 1 年随访(FU)标准。我们比较了 SS-RSC 和 SP-RSC 的手术时间和手术结果。我们还比较了每组最初 8 例患者的数据。

结果

SS-RSC(n=40)和 SP-RSC(n=8)组患者的平均年龄分别为 59.2±11.0 岁和 66.1±8.0 岁。SS-RSC 和 SP-RSC 组的平均手术时间(OT)和控制台时间相当(分别为 135.3±31.6 分钟比 141.8±23.5 分钟;94.6±32.2 分钟比 89±9.5 分钟)。SP-RSC 组的对接时间和宫颈缝合时间较短(P<0.05)。然而,在每组最初 8 例患者的分析中,除宫颈缝合时间外,SP-RSC 组的所有手术时间均较短(P<0.05)。3 例患者术中发生膀胱损伤(SS-RSC 组 2 例[5.0%],SP-RSC 组 1 例[12.5%])。SS-RSC 组 2 例(5.0%)发生脐部切口疝。SP-RSC 组 1 例(2.5%)和 SS-RSC 组 1 例(2.5%)分别在后阴道壁发生阴道补片侵蚀。1 例(2.5%)患者出现 POP 复发;SS-RSC 后 4 周 FU 时前盆腔 POP-Q 分期 2 级。

结论

单切口机器人 sacrocolpopexy,包括 SS-RSC 和 SP-RSC,是治疗有症状的 apical POP 的一种可行且有效的手术选择,具有美容效果。

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