Our initial single port robotic cholecystectomy experience: A feasible and safe option for benign gallbladder diseases.

IF 1.4 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Huseyin Kemal Rasa, Ayhan Erdemir
{"title":"Our initial single port robotic cholecystectomy experience: A feasible and safe option for benign gallbladder diseases.","authors":"Huseyin Kemal Rasa,&nbsp;Ayhan Erdemir","doi":"10.4253/wjge.v14.i12.769","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed for over 25 years, it is still not popular. The narrow working space used in this surgery limits the movement of instruments and causes ergonomic challenges. Robotic surgery not only resolves the ergonomic challenges of single-port laparoscopic surgery but is also considered a good option with its additional technical advantages, like a three-dimensional display and not being affected by tremors. However, the extent to which these technical and ergonomic advantages positively affect the surgical outcomes and how safe the single-port robotic surgeries need to be assessed for each particular surgery.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the feasibility and safety of single-port robotic cholecystectomy for patients with cholelithiasis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The electronic records of the first 40 consecutive patients with gallbladder lithiasis who underwent single-port robotic cholecystectomy from 2013 to 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. In addition to the demographic characteristics of the patients, we analyzed American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores and body mass index. The presence of an accompanying umbilical hernia was also noted. The amount of blood loss during the operation, the necessity to place a drain in the subhepatic area, and the need to use grafts during the closure of the fascia of the port site were determined. Hospital stay, readmission rates, perioperative and postoperative complications, the Clavien-Dindo complication scores and postoperative analgesia requirements were also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age of the 40 patients included in the study was 49.5 ± 11.6 years, and 26 were female (65.0%). The umbilical hernia was present in 24 (60.0%) patients, with a body mass index median of 29.3 kg/m<sup>2</sup> and a mean of 29.7 ± 5.2 kg/m<sup>2</sup>. Fifteen (37.5%) of the patients were evaluated as ASA I, 18 (45.0%) as ASA II, and 7 (17.5%) as ASA III. The mean bleeding amount during the operation was 58.4 ± 55.8 mL, and drain placement was required in 12 patients (30.0%). After port removal, graft reinforcement during fascia closure was preferred in 14 patients (35.0%). The median operation time was 93.5 min and the mean was 101.2 ± 27.0 min. The mean hospital stay was 1.4 ± 0.6 d, and 1 patient was readmitted to the hospital due to pain (2.5%). Clavien-Dindo I complications were seen in 14 patients (35.0%), and five (12.5%) complications were wound site problems.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In addition to the technological and ergonomic advantages robotic surgery provides surgeons, our study strongly supports that single-port robotic cholecystectomy is a feasible and safe option for treating patients with gallstones.</p>","PeriodicalId":23953,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":"14 12","pages":"769-776"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c2/58/WJGE-14-769.PMC9782565.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v14.i12.769","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed for over 25 years, it is still not popular. The narrow working space used in this surgery limits the movement of instruments and causes ergonomic challenges. Robotic surgery not only resolves the ergonomic challenges of single-port laparoscopic surgery but is also considered a good option with its additional technical advantages, like a three-dimensional display and not being affected by tremors. However, the extent to which these technical and ergonomic advantages positively affect the surgical outcomes and how safe the single-port robotic surgeries need to be assessed for each particular surgery.

Aim: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of single-port robotic cholecystectomy for patients with cholelithiasis.

Methods: The electronic records of the first 40 consecutive patients with gallbladder lithiasis who underwent single-port robotic cholecystectomy from 2013 to 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. In addition to the demographic characteristics of the patients, we analyzed American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores and body mass index. The presence of an accompanying umbilical hernia was also noted. The amount of blood loss during the operation, the necessity to place a drain in the subhepatic area, and the need to use grafts during the closure of the fascia of the port site were determined. Hospital stay, readmission rates, perioperative and postoperative complications, the Clavien-Dindo complication scores and postoperative analgesia requirements were also evaluated.

Results: The mean age of the 40 patients included in the study was 49.5 ± 11.6 years, and 26 were female (65.0%). The umbilical hernia was present in 24 (60.0%) patients, with a body mass index median of 29.3 kg/m2 and a mean of 29.7 ± 5.2 kg/m2. Fifteen (37.5%) of the patients were evaluated as ASA I, 18 (45.0%) as ASA II, and 7 (17.5%) as ASA III. The mean bleeding amount during the operation was 58.4 ± 55.8 mL, and drain placement was required in 12 patients (30.0%). After port removal, graft reinforcement during fascia closure was preferred in 14 patients (35.0%). The median operation time was 93.5 min and the mean was 101.2 ± 27.0 min. The mean hospital stay was 1.4 ± 0.6 d, and 1 patient was readmitted to the hospital due to pain (2.5%). Clavien-Dindo I complications were seen in 14 patients (35.0%), and five (12.5%) complications were wound site problems.

Conclusion: In addition to the technological and ergonomic advantages robotic surgery provides surgeons, our study strongly supports that single-port robotic cholecystectomy is a feasible and safe option for treating patients with gallstones.

我们最初的单端口机器人胆囊切除术经验:良性胆囊疾病的可行和安全的选择。
背景:虽然单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术已经进行了超过25年,但它仍然不流行。手术中使用的狭窄工作空间限制了器械的移动,并造成了人体工程学的挑战。机器人手术不仅解决了单孔腹腔镜手术的人体工程学挑战,而且由于其额外的技术优势,如三维显示和不受震动的影响,被认为是一个很好的选择。然而,这些技术和人体工程学优势对手术结果的积极影响程度以及单端口机器人手术的安全性需要对每个特定手术进行评估。目的:评价单孔机器人胆囊切除术治疗胆石症的可行性和安全性。方法:回顾性分析2013年至2021年连续40例胆囊结石患者行单孔机器人胆囊切除术的电子记录。除了患者的人口统计学特征外,我们还分析了美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)评分和体重指数。伴有脐疝也被注意到。确定术中出血量,在肝下区域放置引流管的必要性,以及在关闭端口筋膜时使用移植物的必要性。对住院时间、再入院率、围手术期和术后并发症、Clavien-Dindo并发症评分和术后镇痛需求进行评估。结果:纳入研究的40例患者平均年龄49.5±11.6岁,女性26例(65.0%)。24例(60.0%)患者出现脐疝,体重指数中位数为29.3 kg/m2,平均值为29.7±5.2 kg/m2。ASA I级15例(37.5%),ASA II级18例(45.0%),ASA III级7例(17.5%)。术中平均出血量58.4±55.8 mL,需要放置引流管12例(30.0%)。14例(35.0%)患者在肝窦切除后,在筋膜关闭时首选移植物加固。手术时间中位数为93.5 min,平均为101.2±27.0 min,平均住院时间1.4±0.6 d, 1例患者因疼痛再次入院(2.5%)。Clavien-Dindo I型并发症14例(35.0%),伤口部位并发症5例(12.5%)。结论:除了机器人手术为外科医生提供技术和人机工程学优势外,我们的研究强烈支持单端口机器人胆囊切除术是治疗胆结石患者可行且安全的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
5.00%
发文量
1164
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信