• 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
Comparison of the learning curve of robotassisted and laparoscopicassisted gastrectomy.机器人辅助与腹腔镜辅助胃癌手术学习曲线的比较。
Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2023 May 28;48(5):716-724. doi: 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2023.220635.
2
The impact of robotic technology on the learning curve for robot-assisted gastrectomy in the initial clinical application stage.机器人技术对机器人辅助胃切除术在初始临床应用阶段学习曲线的影响。
Surg Endosc. 2022 Jun;36(6):4171-4180. doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08743-0. Epub 2021 Oct 7.
3
Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison of short-term surgical outcomes.机器人手术与腹腔镜手术治疗胃癌:短期手术结果比较
Surg Endosc. 2016 Feb;30(2):574-580. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4241-7. Epub 2015 Jul 25.
4
Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A retrospective cohort study.机器人与传统腹腔镜胃癌根治术的对比:一项回顾性队列研究。
Int J Surg. 2018 Jul;55:15-23. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.05.015. Epub 2018 May 17.
5
A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Oncological, Cost, and Surgical Stress Analysis.机器人与腹腔镜胃癌根治术的倾向评分匹配比较:肿瘤学、成本和手术应激分析。
J Gastrointest Surg. 2018 Jul;22(7):1152-1162. doi: 10.1007/s11605-018-3785-y. Epub 2018 May 7.
6
Robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison of surgical performance and short-term outcomes.机器人胃癌切除术与腹腔镜胃癌切除术的比较:手术操作及短期疗效对比
Surg Endosc. 2014 Jun;28(6):1779-87. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3385-6. Epub 2014 Jan 3.
7
Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Gastrectomy among Gastric Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Short-Term Analysis from a Single Institution in China.中国某单一机构对胃癌患者进行的机器人辅助与腹腔镜辅助胃切除术的回顾性短期分析
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2019 Oct 23;2019:9059176. doi: 10.1155/2019/9059176. eCollection 2019.
8
Robot versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer by an experienced surgeon: comparisons of surgery, complications, and surgical stress.经验丰富的外科医生行机器人与腹腔镜胃癌手术:手术、并发症和手术应激的比较。
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Apr;20(4):1258-65. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2679-6. Epub 2012 Oct 19.
9
Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic and open resections for gastric carcinoma.机器人手术与传统腹腔镜和开放手术治疗胃癌的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Br J Surg. 2013 Nov;100(12):1566-78. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9242.
10
[Effects of robotic and laparoscopic-assisted surgery on lymph node dissection and short-term outcomes in patients with Siewert II adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction].[机器人手术与腹腔镜辅助手术对食管胃交界部Siewert II型腺癌患者淋巴结清扫及短期预后的影响]
Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2019 Feb 25;22(2):156-163.

引用本文的文献

1
Artificial intelligence in surgical medicine: a brief review.外科学中的人工智能:简要综述。
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2025 Feb 28;87(4):2180-2186. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000003115. eCollection 2025 Apr.

本文引用的文献

1
Early experience with total robotic D2 gastrectomy in a low incidence region: surgical perspectives.低胃癌发病率地区全机器人 D2 胃切除术的早期经验:手术视角。
BMC Surg. 2022 Apr 9;22(1):137. doi: 10.1186/s12893-022-01576-1.
2
Short-term outcomes of robotic distal gastrectomy with the "preemptive retropancreatic approach": a propensity score matching analysis.机器人辅助远端胃切除术采用“预防性胰后入路”的短期疗效:倾向评分匹配分析。
J Robot Surg. 2022 Aug;16(4):825-831. doi: 10.1007/s11701-021-01306-4. Epub 2021 Sep 12.
3
Short-term Outcomes of Robotic Gastrectomy vs Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Patients With Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.机器人胃癌根治术与腹腔镜胃癌根治术治疗胃癌的短期疗效:一项随机临床试验。
JAMA Surg. 2021 Oct 1;156(10):954-963. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.3182.
4
Robotic Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Cohort Study of 5402 Patients in China.机器人胃癌根治术与腹腔镜胃癌根治术治疗胃癌的多中心队列研究:中国 5402 例患者的研究。
Ann Surg. 2023 Jan 1;277(1):e87-e95. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005046. Epub 2021 Jul 2.
5
Lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: Establishment of D2 and the current position of splenectomy in Europe and Japan.胃癌淋巴结清扫术:D2 术式的确立及在欧洲和日本的脾切除术现状。
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 Sep;47(9):2233-2236. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.04.019. Epub 2021 Apr 21.
6
Delta-shaped gastroduodenostomy using a robotic stapler in reduced-port totally robotic gastrectomy: its safety and efficiency compared with conventional anastomosis techniques.机器人辅助小切口胃癌根治术中应用 Delta 型胃十二指肠吻合术与传统吻合技术比较的安全性和有效性。
Sci Rep. 2020 Sep 7;10(1):14729. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71807-z.
7
Assessment of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial.机器人与腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术的评估:一项随机对照试验。
Ann Surg. 2021 May 1;273(5):858-867. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004466.
8
Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: The KLASS-02-RCT Randomized Clinical Trial.腹腔镜辅助进展期胃癌根治术的长期疗效:KLASS-02 RCT 随机临床试验。
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 1;38(28):3304-3313. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01210. Epub 2020 Aug 20.
9
Robotic D2 total gastrectomy with en-mass removal of the spleen and body and tail of the pancreas for locally advanced gastric cancer.机器人辅助 D2 全胃切除术联合整块脾脏、胰体尾切除治疗局部进展期胃癌
Surg Oncol. 2020 Dec;35:22-23. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2020.07.007. Epub 2020 Aug 6.
10
Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2018 (5th edition).《日本胃癌治疗指南2018(第5版)》
Gastric Cancer. 2021 Jan;24(1):1-21. doi: 10.1007/s10120-020-01042-y. Epub 2020 Feb 14.

机器人辅助与腹腔镜辅助胃癌手术学习曲线的比较。

Comparison of the learning curve of robotassisted and laparoscopicassisted gastrectomy.

机构信息

Second Department of Gastrointestinal, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha 410013, China.

出版信息

Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2023 May 28;48(5):716-724. doi: 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2023.220635.

DOI:10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2023.220635
PMID:37539574
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10930412/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Da Vinci robot technology is widely used in clinic,with minimally invasive surgery development. This study aims to explore the possible influence of advanced surgical robotics on the surgery learning curve by comparing the initial clinical learning curves of 2 different surgical techniques: robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) and laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG).

METHODS

From September 2017 to December 2020, a chief surgeon completed a total of 108 cases of radical gastric cancer from the initial stage, including 27 cases of RAG of the Da Vinci Si robotic system (RAG group) and 81 cases of LAG (LAG group). The lymph node of gastric cancer implemented by the Japanese treatment guidelines of gastric cancer. The surgical results, postoperative complications, oncology results and learning curve were analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in general data, tumor size, pathological grade and clinical stage between the 2 groups (>0.05). The incidence of serious complications in the RAG group was lower than the LAG group (=0.003). The intraoperative blood loss in the RAG group was lower than that in the LAG group (=0.046). The number of lymph nodes cleaned in the RAG group was more (=0.003), among which there was obvious advantage in lymph node cleaning in the No.9 group (=0.038) and 11p group (=0.015). The operation time of the RAG group was significantly longer than the LAG group (=0.015). The analysis of learning curve found that the cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM) value of the RAG group decreased from the 10th case, while the CUSUM of the LAG group decreased from the 28th case. The learning curve of the RAG group had fewer closing cases than that of the LAG group. The unique design of the surgical robot might help to improve the surgical efficiency and shorten the surgical learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced robotics helps experienced surgeons quickly learn to master RAG skills. With the help of robotics, RAG are superior to LAG in No.9 and 11p lymph node dissection and surgical trauma reduction. RAG can clear more lymph nodes than LAG, and has better perioperative effect.

摘要

目的

达芬奇机器人技术在微创外科发展中得到广泛应用。本研究旨在通过比较两种不同手术技术的初步临床学习曲线,即机器人辅助胃切除术(RAG)和腹腔镜辅助胃切除术(LAG),探讨先进的手术机器人对手术学习曲线的可能影响。

方法

自 2017 年 9 月至 2020 年 12 月,一位首席外科医生完成了总共 108 例早期胃癌根治术,其中达芬奇 Si 机器人系统 27 例 RAG(RAG 组)和 81 例 LAG(LAG 组)。胃癌的淋巴结清扫实施日本胃癌治疗指南。分析手术结果、术后并发症、肿瘤学结果和学习曲线。

结果

两组一般资料、肿瘤大小、病理分级、临床分期比较差异无统计学意义(>0.05)。RAG 组严重并发症发生率低于 LAG 组(=0.003)。RAG 组术中出血量低于 LAG 组(=0.046)。RAG 组清扫的淋巴结数量较多(=0.003),其中第 9 组(=0.038)和 11p 组(=0.015)的淋巴结清扫有明显优势。RAG 组的手术时间明显长于 LAG 组(=0.015)。学习曲线分析发现,RAG 组的累积和分析(CUSUM)值从第 10 例开始下降,而 LAG 组的 CUSUM 值从第 28 例开始下降。RAG 组的学习曲线比 LAG 组的关闭病例数少。手术机器人的独特设计可能有助于提高手术效率并缩短手术学习曲线。

结论

先进的机器人技术有助于经验丰富的外科医生快速掌握 RAG 技能。在机器人的帮助下,RAG 在第 9 组和 11p 淋巴结清扫和减少手术创伤方面优于 LAG。RAG 可以清除比 LAG 更多的淋巴结,并且具有更好的围手术期效果。