• 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

机器人辅助骶骨阴道固定术中不同注气压力下的疼痛:一项随机对照试验。

Pain With Differing Insufflation Pressures During Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Department of Biomedical Investigations and Research, and the Division of FPMRS, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, and Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

出版信息

Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Jul 1;142(1):151-159. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005231. Epub 2023 Jun 7.

DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005231
PMID:37348093
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether decreasing insufflation pressure reduces postoperative pain and opioid use in women undergoing robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy.

METHODS

In a single-blinded randomized trial, women with pelvic organ prolapse underwent robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy at either 12 mm Hg (experimental) or 15 mm Hg (standard) insufflation pressure. The primary outcome was pain rating on a visual analog scale (VAS) on postoperative day 1 within 24 hours of surgery. Secondary outcomes included VAS pain rating at outpatient follow-up, inpatient and outpatient use of opioids, operative time, and estimated blood loss. A margin of 15 mm was considered clinically different on the VAS, and at 80% power, a sample size of at least 64 participants was needed to show significance.

RESULTS

From April 27, 2021, to May 17, 2022, 80 women were enrolled, with 41 in the experimental group and 39 in the standard group. All participants underwent surgery as planned and attended a 2-week postoperative follow-up. Participants in the experimental group had less pain on postoperative day 1 with median VAS of 17.0 mm (interquartile range 26.0) compared with 29.0 mm (interquartile range 32.0, P=.007) in the standard group. No differences were noted in the secondary outcomes of operative time, estimated blood loss, or length of stay. Participants in the experimental group were noted to use fewer opioids while an inpatient (P=.04) and outpatient (P=.02). In multivariable analyses, lower insufflation pressure and increasing age were negatively associated with postoperative VAS scores.

CONCLUSION

Lowering insufflation pressure (12 mm Hg) during robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy safely reduced postoperative pain and opioid use compared with standard pressure (15 mm Hg).

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinialTrials.gov, NCT04858438.

摘要

目的

评估在接受机器人辅助骶骨阴道固定术的女性中,降低注气压力是否会减轻术后疼痛和减少阿片类药物的使用。

方法

在一项单盲随机试验中,患有盆腔器官脱垂的女性以 12 毫米汞柱(实验组)或 15 毫米汞柱(标准组)的注气压力接受机器人辅助骶骨阴道固定术。主要结局是手术 24 小时内术后第 1 天的视觉模拟评分(VAS)疼痛评分。次要结局包括门诊随访时的 VAS 疼痛评分、住院和门诊使用阿片类药物、手术时间和估计失血量。VAS 上 15 毫米的差值被认为具有临床意义,在 80%的功效下,至少需要 64 名参与者的样本量才能显示出显著性。

结果

从 2021 年 4 月 27 日至 2022 年 5 月 17 日,共纳入 80 名女性,实验组 41 名,标准组 39 名。所有参与者均按计划接受手术,并在术后 2 周进行随访。实验组在术后第 1 天的疼痛较轻,中位数 VAS 为 17.0 毫米(四分位间距 26.0),而标准组为 29.0 毫米(四分位间距 32.0,P=0.007)。手术时间、估计失血量或住院时间等次要结局无差异。实验组在住院(P=0.04)和门诊(P=0.02)时使用的阿片类药物较少。多变量分析显示,较低的注气压力和年龄增加与术后 VAS 评分呈负相关。

结论

与标准压力(15 毫米汞柱)相比,在机器人辅助骶骨阴道固定术中降低注气压力(12 毫米汞柱)可安全减轻术后疼痛和减少阿片类药物的使用。

临床试验注册

ClinialTrials.gov,NCT04858438。

相似文献

1
Pain With Differing Insufflation Pressures During Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.机器人辅助骶骨阴道固定术中不同注气压力下的疼痛:一项随机对照试验。
Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Jul 1;142(1):151-159. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005231. Epub 2023 Jun 7.
2
Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Absorption Rates in Gynecologic Laparoscopy with a Valveless versus Standard Insufflation System: Randomized Controlled Trial.无阀门与标准注气系统在妇科腹腔镜手术中二氧化碳吸收速率的比较:随机对照试验。
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Jan;27(1):225-234. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.05.005. Epub 2019 May 21.
3
Comparing Postoperative Pain With Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Sacrocolpopexy.比较腹腔镜与机器人辅助骶骨阴道固定术术后疼痛。
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2024 Mar;31(3):200-204. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2023.11.016. Epub 2023 Nov 25.
4
Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site compared with robotic multi-port sacrocolpopexy for apical compartment prolapse.机器人经腹腔镜单部位与机器人多部位经阴道骶骨阴道固定术治疗阴道顶端脱垂的比较。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Apr;222(4):358.e1-358.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.048. Epub 2019 Oct 4.
5
Less is more: clinical impact of decreasing pneumoperitoneum pressures during robotic surgery.少即是多:机器人手术中降低气腹压力的临床影响。
J Robot Surg. 2021 Apr;15(2):299-307. doi: 10.1007/s11701-020-01104-4. Epub 2020 Jun 22.
6
Comparative Perioperative Pain and Recovery in Women Undergoing Vaginal Reconstruction Versus Robotic Sacrocolpopexy.阴道重建术与机器人骶骨阴道固定术围手术期疼痛及恢复情况的比较
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017 Mar/Apr;23(2):95-100. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000368.
7
A prospective randomized trial of postoperative pain following different insufflation pressures during gynecologic laparoscopy.一项关于妇科腹腔镜检查期间不同气腹压力下术后疼痛的前瞻性随机试验。
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Nov;182:81-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.09.003. Epub 2014 Sep 16.
8
Cosmetic Appearance of Port-site Scars 1 Year After Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: A Supplementary Study of the ACCESS Clinical Trial.腹腔镜与机器人骶骨阴道固定术后1年腹部穿刺孔瘢痕的外观:ACCESS临床试验的补充研究
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Sep-Oct;23(6):917-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.05.001. Epub 2016 May 12.
9
Liposomal Bupivacaine During Robotic Colpopexy and Posterior Repair: A Randomized Controlled Trial.机器人阴道骶骨固定术和后路修复术中脂质体布比卡因的应用:一项随机对照试验
Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jan;131(1):39-46. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002375.
10
Randomized Trial of Ultralow vs Standard Pneumoperitoneum during Robotic Prostatectomy.机器人前列腺切除术中超低与标准气腹的随机试验。
J Urol. 2022 Sep;208(3):626-632. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002729. Epub 2022 May 2.

引用本文的文献

1
The Safety of Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.机器人辅助骶骨阴道固定术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的安全性:系统评价与荟萃分析
Int Urogynecol J. 2025 Jul;36(7):1355-1372. doi: 10.1007/s00192-025-06158-2. Epub 2025 Jun 12.