Comparative study of robotic-assisted single-incision-plus-one port and single-incision laparoscopic choledochal cyst excision.

IF 2.1 3区医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS

Frontiers in Pediatrics Pub Date : 2024-09-19 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fped.2024.1403358

Ling Zhang, Shan Chen, Yang Lin, Jianbin Wang, Xinyi Qiu, Lizhi Li

{"title":"Comparative study of robotic-assisted single-incision-plus-one port and single-incision laparoscopic choledochal cyst excision.","authors":"Ling Zhang, Shan Chen, Yang Lin, Jianbin Wang, Xinyi Qiu, Lizhi Li","doi":"10.3389/fped.2024.1403358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare the efficacy of robotic-assisted single-incision-plus-one-port laparoscopic choledochal cyst excision (R-SILC + 1) and single-incision laparoscopic choledochal cyst (SILC) in treating pediatric choledochal cyst (CDC).Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients diagnosed with CDC in our hospital from June 2021 to October 2023. Among them, patients underwent either R-SILC + 1 or SILC procedures. Demographic parameters, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were studied.Results: A total of forty-nine patients were included, with 23 children undergoing R-SILC + 1 and 26 children undergoing SILC. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic data, postoperative pain scores, and postoperative complication rates between the two groups (all p > 0.05). Compared with the SILC group, the R-SILC + 1 group demonstrated less intraoperative bleeding volume (10.4 ± 3.6 vs. 15.0 ± 3.6 ml, p < 0.05), a shorter indwelling time of the abdominal drainage tube [5(5,6) vs. 7(5.8,8.3) d, p < 0.05], a shorter postoperative fasting time [4(3,4) vs. 6(5,7) d, p < 0.05], and a shorter postoperative discharge time [6(6,7) vs. 8(6,11) d, p < 0.05]. However, the R-SILC + 1 group had a longer operation time [388(295,415) vs. 341(255.8,375.2) min, p < 0.05] and higher hospitalization cost (7.9 ± 0.4 vs. 3.2 ± 0.3 ten thousand, p < 0.05).Conclusion: Compared with the SILC group, the R-SILC + 1 group demonstrated clear advantages in treating pediatric CDC, but it is associated with a prolonged learning curve and operation time, and high costs. With improvements in physician experience and technological advancements, its potential will be further unleashed.","PeriodicalId":12637,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Pediatrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11447616/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2024.1403358","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy of robotic-assisted single-incision-plus-one-port laparoscopic choledochal cyst excision (R-SILC + 1) and single-incision laparoscopic choledochal cyst (SILC) in treating pediatric choledochal cyst (CDC).

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients diagnosed with CDC in our hospital from June 2021 to October 2023. Among them, patients underwent either R-SILC + 1 or SILC procedures. Demographic parameters, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were studied.

Results: A total of forty-nine patients were included, with 23 children undergoing R-SILC + 1 and 26 children undergoing SILC. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic data, postoperative pain scores, and postoperative complication rates between the two groups (all p > 0.05). Compared with the SILC group, the R-SILC + 1 group demonstrated less intraoperative bleeding volume (10.4 ± 3.6 vs. 15.0 ± 3.6 ml, p < 0.05), a shorter indwelling time of the abdominal drainage tube [5(5,6) vs. 7(5.8,8.3) d, p < 0.05], a shorter postoperative fasting time [4(3,4) vs. 6(5,7) d, p < 0.05], and a shorter postoperative discharge time [6(6,7) vs. 8(6,11) d, p < 0.05]. However, the R-SILC + 1 group had a longer operation time [388(295,415) vs. 341(255.8,375.2) min, p < 0.05] and higher hospitalization cost (7.9 ± 0.4 vs. 3.2 ± 0.3 ten thousand, p < 0.05).

Conclusion: Compared with the SILC group, the R-SILC + 1 group demonstrated clear advantages in treating pediatric CDC, but it is associated with a prolonged learning curve and operation time, and high costs. With improvements in physician experience and technological advancements, its potential will be further unleashed.

查看原文本刊更多论文

机器人辅助单切口加一孔与单切口腹腔镜胆总管囊肿切除术的比较研究。

目的比较机器人辅助单切口+1口腹腔镜胆总管囊肿切除术（R-SILC + 1）和单切口腹腔镜胆总管囊肿切除术（SILC）治疗小儿胆总管囊肿（CDC）的疗效：我们回顾性分析了2021年6月至2023年10月在我院确诊的胆总管囊肿患者的临床资料。其中，患者接受了 R-SILC + 1 或 SILC 手术。研究了人口统计学参数、手术细节和术后结果：共纳入 49 名患者，其中 23 名儿童接受了 R-SILC + 1 手术，26 名儿童接受了 SILC 手术。两组患者的人口统计学数据、术后疼痛评分和术后并发症发生率差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。与 SILC 组相比，R-SILC + 1 组的术中出血量较少（10.4 ± 3.6 对 15.0 ± 3.6 毫升，p p p p p p p p p p p p p 结论：与 SILC 组相比，R-SILC + 1 组在治疗小儿 CDC 方面优势明显，但学习曲线和手术时间较长，且费用较高。随着医生经验的丰富和技术的进步，其潜力将得到进一步释放。

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

Frontiers in Pediatrics Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health

CiteScore

3.60

自引率

7.70%

发文量

2132

审稿时长

14 weeks

期刊介绍： Frontiers in Pediatrics (Impact Factor 2.33) publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research broadly across the field, from basic to clinical research that meets ongoing challenges in pediatric patient care and child health. Field Chief Editors Arjan Te Pas at Leiden University and Michael L. Moritz at the Children''s Hospital of Pittsburgh are supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international experts. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. Frontiers in Pediatrics also features Research Topics, Frontiers special theme-focused issues managed by Guest Associate Editors, addressing important areas in pediatrics. In this fashion, Frontiers serves as an outlet to publish the broadest aspects of pediatrics in both basic and clinical research, including high-quality reviews, case reports, editorials and commentaries related to all aspects of pediatrics.