• 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
A Retrospective Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: An Indian Tertiary Care Comparative Experience.机器人与腹腔镜胆囊切除术短期结局的回顾性分析:一项印度三级医疗中心的对比经验
Cureus. 2024 Sep 12;16(9):e69295. doi: 10.7759/cureus.69295. eCollection 2024 Sep.
2
A retrospective comparison of robotic cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: operative outcomes and cost analysis.机器人胆囊切除术与腹腔镜胆囊切除术的回顾性比较:手术结果与成本分析
Surg Endosc. 2017 Mar;31(3):1436-1441. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5134-0. Epub 2016 Aug 5.
3
Robotic cholecystectomy using Senhance robotic platform versus laparoscopic conventional cholecystectomy: a propensity score analysis.使用 Senhance 机器人平台行机器人胆囊切除术与腹腔镜常规胆囊切除术的比较:倾向评分分析。
Acta Chir Belg. 2022 Jun;122(3):160-163. doi: 10.1080/00015458.2021.1881332. Epub 2021 Feb 5.
4
Robotic cholecystectomy with a new port placement: Is it really beneficial?机器人胆囊切除术的新端口放置:真的有益吗?
Asian J Surg. 2022 Aug;45(8):1542-1546. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2021.09.016. Epub 2021 Nov 4.
5
Outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease in Veteran patients.退伍军人患者良性胆囊疾病的机器人和腹腔镜胆囊切除术的结果。
J Robot Surg. 2021 Dec;15(6):849-857. doi: 10.1007/s11701-020-01183-3. Epub 2021 Jan 5.
6
A Comparative Study of Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Cholecystectomies Based on the Parkland Grading Scale.基于帕克兰分级量表的腹腔镜与机器人胆囊切除术的比较研究
Cureus. 2024 Sep 3;16(9):e68523. doi: 10.7759/cureus.68523. eCollection 2024 Sep.
7
Short-term outcomes and costs analysis of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy-a retrospective single-center analysis.机器人辅助与腹腔镜胆囊切除术的短期结果和成本分析 - 回顾性单中心分析。
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2023 Aug 8;408(1):299. doi: 10.1007/s00423-023-03037-6.
8
Comparative analysis of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in pediatric patients.机器人辅助与腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗小儿患者的对比分析。
J Pediatr Surg. 2021 Oct;56(10):1876-1880. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2020.11.013. Epub 2020 Nov 20.
9
Feasibility of robotic cholecystectomy at an academic center with a young robotic surgery program: a retrospective cohort study with umbrella review.在一个年轻的机器人手术项目的学术中心进行机器人胆囊切除术的可行性:一项回顾性队列研究与伞状评价。
J Robot Surg. 2024 Feb 27;18(1):93. doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-01824-x.
10
Initial experience of robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer: a matched case-control study.机器人辅助与腹腔镜下横结肠癌切除术的初步经验:一项配对病例对照研究。
World J Surg Oncol. 2015 Oct 9;13:295. doi: 10.1186/s12957-015-0708-1.

本文引用的文献

1
Safety of robotic cholecystectomy as index training procedure: the UK experience.机器人胆囊切除术作为培训指标的安全性:英国经验。
Surg Endosc. 2024 Sep;38(9):4880-4886. doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-11006-3. Epub 2024 Jul 2.
2
Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.机器人辅助胆囊切除术与传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗良性胆囊疾病的系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Robot Surg. 2024 Jun 5;18(1):242. doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-01989-5.
3
Laparoscopic versus robotic cholecystectomy: a systematic review with meta-analysis to differentiate between postoperative outcomes and cost-effectiveness.腹腔镜胆囊切除术与机器人辅助胆囊切除术:一项进行荟萃分析的系统评价,以区分术后结局和成本效益。
Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jan 12;9:3. doi: 10.21037/tgh-23-56. eCollection 2024.
4
Comparative Safety of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.机器人辅助与腹腔镜胆囊切除术的比较安全性。
JAMA Surg. 2023 Dec 1;158(12):1303-1310. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.4389.
5
Systematic review: robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic multiport cholecystectomy.系统评价:机器人辅助与传统腹腔镜多孔胆囊切除术的比较。
J Robot Surg. 2023 Oct;17(5):1967-1977. doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01662-3. Epub 2023 Jul 13.
6
Robotic cholecystectomy with a new port placement: Is it really beneficial?机器人胆囊切除术的新端口放置:真的有益吗?
Asian J Surg. 2022 Aug;45(8):1542-1546. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2021.09.016. Epub 2021 Nov 4.
7
Outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease in Veteran patients.退伍军人患者良性胆囊疾病的机器人和腹腔镜胆囊切除术的结果。
J Robot Surg. 2021 Dec;15(6):849-857. doi: 10.1007/s11701-020-01183-3. Epub 2021 Jan 5.
8
Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy: results of a randomized controlled trial.机器人辅助与腹腔镜单孔胆囊切除术的随机对照试验结果。
Surg Endosc. 2019 May;33(5):1482-1490. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6430-7. Epub 2018 Sep 14.
9
Comparison of the outcomes of robotic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy.机器人辅助胆囊切除术与腹腔镜胆囊切除术的疗效比较。
Ann Surg Treat Res. 2017 Jul;93(1):27-34. doi: 10.4174/astr.2017.93.1.27. Epub 2017 Jun 26.
10
Cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and quality of life after da Vinci Single-Site cholecystectomy and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: short-term results from a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.达芬奇单孔胆囊切除术与多孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术后的美容效果、患者满意度及生活质量:一项前瞻性、多中心、随机对照试验的短期结果
Surg Endosc. 2017 Aug;31(8):3242-3250. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5353-4. Epub 2016 Nov 18.

机器人与腹腔镜胆囊切除术短期结局的回顾性分析:一项印度三级医疗中心的对比经验

A Retrospective Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: An Indian Tertiary Care Comparative Experience.

作者信息

Ray Udipta, Dhar Rahul

机构信息

Gastroenterology, Minimal Access and Bariatric Surgery, Fortis Hospital, Kolkata, IND.

Surgical Gastroenterology, Fortis Hospital, Kolkata, IND.

出版信息

Cureus. 2024 Sep 12;16(9):e69295. doi: 10.7759/cureus.69295. eCollection 2024 Sep.

DOI:10.7759/cureus.69295
PMID:39398781
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11470972/
Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

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。

方法

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。

结果

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。

结论

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。