Fan Shubo, Li Zhihua, Meng Chang, Ying Yicen, Han Guanpeng, Gao Jingjing, Li Xinfei, Wang Jie, Yuan Changwei, Xiong Shengwei, Zhang Peng, Yang Kunlin, Feng Ninghan, Zhu Hongjian, Li Xuesong
Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University. National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, People's Republic of China.
Department of Nursing, Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, National Urological Cancer Center, Peking University, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, People's Republic of China.
Int Urol Nephrol. 2023 Mar;55(3):597-604. doi: 10.1007/s11255-022-03385-0. Epub 2022 Nov 3.
Ureteroplasty with a lingual mucosa graft (LMG) for complex ureteral stricture was reported promising. We aimed to compare outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic ureteroplasty using a LMG (RU-LMG vs. LU-LMG, respectively).
From October 2018 to January 2021, 32 ureteroplasties using LMGs were performed by one experienced surgeon, including 16 robotic and laparoscopic procedures each. Patient demographics and peri-operative, post-operative, and follow-up data were prospectively collected and compared.
The robotic group had a higher rate of previous reconstruction than the laparoscopic group (62.50% vs. 18.75%; p = 0.012). The stricture length was significantly longer in the robotic group (4.8 ± 1.2 cm) than the laparoscopic group (3.7 ± 1.2 cm; p = 0.013). All procedures were completed successfully without open conversion. The operative time was shorter in the robotic group (192 ± 54 min) than the laparoscopic group (254 ± 46 min; p = 0.001). The robotic group had a shorter length of post-operative stay (6.1 ± 2.4 d vs. 8.9 ± 4.3 d; p = 0.033) but a higher hospital cost (76,801 ± 17,974 vs. 42,214 ± 15,757 RMB; p < 0.001) than the laparoscopic group. The mean follow-up time was 21 ± 7 months for the robotic group and 29 ± 9 months for the laparoscopic group respectively (p = 0.014). No difference was detected in the success rate (93.75% and 100%, respectively; p = 0.309) and complication rate (18.75% and 31.25%, respectively; p = 0.414) between the robotic and laparoscopic groups.
Both RU-LMG and LU-LMG are feasible, effective, and safe for repair of complex ureteral strictures. RU-LMG had a shorter operative time and a shorter length of post-operative stay but a higher hospital cost.
据报道,采用舌黏膜移植(LMG)进行输尿管成形术治疗复杂性输尿管狭窄前景良好。我们旨在比较机器人辅助输尿管成形术与腹腔镜输尿管成形术使用LMG的效果(分别为RU-LMG与LU-LMG)。
2018年10月至2021年1月,由一位经验丰富的外科医生进行了32例使用LMG的输尿管成形术,其中机器人辅助手术和腹腔镜手术各16例。前瞻性收集并比较患者的人口统计学资料以及围手术期、术后和随访数据。
机器人手术组既往重建手术的比例高于腹腔镜手术组(62.50%对18.75%;p = 0.012)。机器人手术组的狭窄长度(4.8±1.2 cm)显著长于腹腔镜手术组(3.7±1.2 cm;p = 0.013)。所有手术均成功完成,无需中转开放手术。机器人手术组的手术时间(192±54分钟)短于腹腔镜手术组(254±46分钟;p = 0.001)。机器人手术组的术后住院时间较短(6.1±2.4天对8.9±4.3天;p = 0.033),但住院费用高于腹腔镜手术组(76,801±17,974元对42,214±15,757元;p < 0.001)。机器人手术组的平均随访时间为21±7个月,腹腔镜手术组为29±9个月(p = 0.014)。机器人手术组和腹腔镜手术组的成功率(分别为93.75%和100%;p = 0.309)和并发症发生率(分别为18.75%和31.25%;p = 0.414)无差异。
RU-LMG和LU-LMG在修复复杂性输尿管狭窄方面都是可行、有效且安全的。RU-LMG手术时间较短,术后住院时间较短,但住院费用较高。