Ray Udipta, Dhar Rahul
Gastroenterology, Minimal Access and Bariatric Surgery, Fortis Hospital, Kolkata, IND.
Surgical Gastroenterology, Fortis Hospital, Kolkata, IND.
Cureus. 2024 Sep 12;16(9):e69295. doi: 10.7759/cureus.69295. eCollection 2024 Sep.
Background There has been a gradual adoption of general surgery robotic programs in India. However, we still do not have a single comparative study reporting the initial experience of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). This retrospective study is aimed at addressing this clinical data gap. Methods This is a retrospective medical chart review where data related to patient demographics, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were collected. All patients underwent either RC or LC for gallstone disease, performed by a single surgeon from January 2020 to September 2023. The surgeon had passed the learning curve for RC and this data collection reflects his post-learning curve experience. Results A total of 100 cases (RC: 50; LC: 50) were collected. Baseline parameters such as age, sex, BMI, and comorbidities were comparable. There were no conversions from the planned procedure in either of the groups (0% vs 0%). There were no intraoperative complications such as bleeding or common bile duct injury (0% vs 0%). The rates of surgical site infections (SSIs) were numerically lower in the robotic group, 2% vs 6% (p = 0.3099). There were no postoperative complications in the robotic group, whereas one patient in the laparoscopic group experienced port side bleeding (0% vs 2%, p = 0.3173). The mean length of hospital stay was one day in both groups. The mean pain score 24- hours after the surgery was 1.78 ± 0.68 in the robotic group and 3.3 ± 1.2 in the laparoscopic group (p = <0.001). None of the patients required opioid analgesics in the robotic group, whereas 20% of patients in the laparoscopic group needed at least one dose of opioid analgesics (p = 0.0009). There were no reoperations reported in the robotic group, whereas the laparoscopic group reported 1 case. The 30-day mortality was nil in both groups. Conclusion RC is feasible in Indian settings. Compared to LC, it does not increase morbidity. The improvement in acute postoperative pain can potentially allow early ambulation and recovery. A larger multicentric study, comparing RC to LC in India will validate our initial experience.
印度已逐渐采用普通外科机器人手术项目。然而,我们仍没有一项比较研究报告机器人胆囊切除术(RC)与腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)的初始经验。这项回顾性研究旨在填补这一临床数据空白。
这是一项回顾性病历审查,收集了与患者人口统计学、术中及术后结果相关的数据。2020年1月至2023年9月,所有患者均由同一位外科医生进行RC或LC治疗胆结石疾病。该外科医生已度过RC的学习曲线,本数据收集反映了他学习曲线后的经验。
共收集了100例病例(RC:50例;LC:50例)。年龄、性别、BMI和合并症等基线参数具有可比性。两组均无计划手术的转换情况(0%对0%)。两组均无术中并发症,如出血或胆总管损伤(0%对0%)。机器人组手术部位感染(SSI)发生率在数值上较低,为2%对6%(p = 0.3099)。机器人组无术后并发症,而腹腔镜组有1例患者出现端口侧出血(0%对2%,p = 0.3173)。两组的平均住院时间均为1天。机器人组术后24小时的平均疼痛评分为1.78±0.68,腹腔镜组为3.3±1.2(p = <0.001)。机器人组无一例患者需要使用阿片类镇痛药,而腹腔镜组20%的患者至少需要一剂阿片类镇痛药(p = 0.0009)。机器人组无再次手术报告,而腹腔镜组报告1例。两组30天死亡率均为零。
RC在印度环境中是可行的。与LC相比,它不会增加发病率。术后急性疼痛的改善可能有助于早期活动和康复。在印度进行一项比较RC与LC的更大规模多中心研究将验证我们的初始经验。