Single-center experience of robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy

Intelligent Surgery Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.isurg.2021.02.001

Jiang Zhengchen , Zhu Jiankang , Zhong Mingwei , Dong Shuohui , Li Linchuan , Wang Shuo , Li Songhan , Zhang Guangyong , Hu Sanyuan

{"title":"Single-center experience of robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy","authors":"Jiang Zhengchen , Zhu Jiankang , Zhong Mingwei , Dong Shuohui , Li Linchuan , Wang Shuo , Li Songhan , Zhang Guangyong , Hu Sanyuan","doi":"10.1016/j.isurg.2021.02.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The introduction of the robotic platform to bariatric surgery has brought forth a novel approach. The purpose of this research was to study the advantages and disadvantages of the combination modes of the robotic arm and laparoscopic instruments in robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (RASG).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>9 The clinical data of 12 patients who underwent RASG in the first affiliated hospital of shandong first medical university from December 2019 to September 2020 were analyzed. According to the different combination modes of laparoscopic instruments and robotic arms, they were divided into two groups: the “4 + 1″ group (n = 6) and the “3 + 2” group (n = 6).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>This study evaluated a total of 12 patients. There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics characteristics and co-morbid disease. The mean operating time (125.3 ± 6.5min in 4 + 1 versus 127 ± 8.3min in 3 + 2, P = 0.601), length of hospital stay (6.3 ± 1.0 d in 4 + 1 versus 5.6 ± 1.9 d in 3 + 2, P = 0.221),intraoperative blood loss (31.6 ± 9.8 ml in 4 + 1 versus 28.3 ± 11.7 ml in 3 + 2, P = 0.713), hospital costs (72487.6 ± 1135.1 yuan in 4 + 1 versus 73433.8 ± 5301.5 yuan in 3 + 2, P = 0.12), excess Weight Loss (EWL)% at 1 month after operation (12.4 ± 1.9 in 4 + 1 versus 13.3 ± 2.4 in 3 + 2, P = 0.634)did not differ between the two groups.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Two modes are both feasible and safe for RASG. The surgeon can choose one mode to perform the operation according to the situation of his team.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100683,"journal":{"name":"Intelligent Surgery","volume":"1 ","pages":"Pages 3-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.isurg.2021.02.001","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intelligent Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666676621000028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The introduction of the robotic platform to bariatric surgery has brought forth a novel approach. The purpose of this research was to study the advantages and disadvantages of the combination modes of the robotic arm and laparoscopic instruments in robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (RASG).

Methods

9 The clinical data of 12 patients who underwent RASG in the first affiliated hospital of shandong first medical university from December 2019 to September 2020 were analyzed. According to the different combination modes of laparoscopic instruments and robotic arms, they were divided into two groups: the “4 + 1″ group (n = 6) and the “3 + 2” group (n = 6).

Results

This study evaluated a total of 12 patients. There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics characteristics and co-morbid disease. The mean operating time (125.3 ± 6.5min in 4 + 1 versus 127 ± 8.3min in 3 + 2, P = 0.601), length of hospital stay (6.3 ± 1.0 d in 4 + 1 versus 5.6 ± 1.9 d in 3 + 2, P = 0.221),intraoperative blood loss (31.6 ± 9.8 ml in 4 + 1 versus 28.3 ± 11.7 ml in 3 + 2, P = 0.713), hospital costs (72487.6 ± 1135.1 yuan in 4 + 1 versus 73433.8 ± 5301.5 yuan in 3 + 2, P = 0.12), excess Weight Loss (EWL)% at 1 month after operation (12.4 ± 1.9 in 4 + 1 versus 13.3 ± 2.4 in 3 + 2, P = 0.634)did not differ between the two groups.

Conclusions

Two modes are both feasible and safe for RASG. The surgeon can choose one mode to perform the operation according to the situation of his team.

查看原文本刊更多论文

机器人辅助袖式胃切除术的单中心体验

在减肥手术中引入机器人平台带来了一种新的方法。本研究的目的是研究机器人辅助袖式胃切除术(robot-assisted sleeve gastric resection, RASG)中机械臂与腹腔镜器械组合方式的优缺点。方法分析2019年12月至2020年9月山东第一医科大学附属第一医院12例RASG患者的临床资料。根据腹腔镜器械与机械臂组合方式的不同，将其分为“4 + 1″”组(n = 6)和“3 + 2”组(n = 6)。结果本研究共评估了12例患者。患者人口统计学特征和合并症方面无统计学差异。平均运行时间(125.3±6.5分钟4 + 1与127±8.3分钟3 + 2,P = 0.601),住院时间(6.3±1.0 d 4 + 1和5.6±1.9 d 3 + 2, P = 0.221),术中失血(31.6±9.8毫升4 + 1和28.3±11.7毫升3 + 2,P = 0.713),医院成本(72487.6±1135.1元4 + 1和73433.8±5301.5元3 + 2,P = 0.12),术后1个月，两组患者的体重损失(EWL)%(4 + 1组12.4±1.9,3 + 2组13.3±2.4,P = 0.634)无显著差异。结论两种治疗方法均可行且安全。外科医生可根据本组情况选择一种方式进行手术。

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

Intelligent Surgery

自引率

0.00%

发文量