A randomized trial of MONOFIX® vs. V-loc™ for resection bed suture during robotic partial nephrectomy.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Jang Hee Han, Gyoohwan Jung, Jung Kwon Kim, Seok-Soo Byun, Seong Ii Seo, Sung-Hoo Hong, Cheol Kwak, Chang Wook Jeong
{"title":"A randomized trial of MONOFIX<sup>®</sup> vs. V-loc™ for resection bed suture during robotic partial nephrectomy.","authors":"Jang Hee Han, Gyoohwan Jung, Jung Kwon Kim, Seok-Soo Byun, Seong Ii Seo, Sung-Hoo Hong, Cheol Kwak, Chang Wook Jeong","doi":"10.1186/s12885-024-13213-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Monofix<sup>®</sup>-PDO compared to V-Loc™ for tumor bed suturing during robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RAPN).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A randomized, controlled, multicenter, single-blinded trial was conducted across four tertiary institutions. Patients with T1-2 stage renal masses scheduled for RAPN were enrolled. The exclusion criteria included patients not deemed in need of bed suturing, those with a history of prior chemotherapy or immunotherapy, and those with severe systemic diseases or high bleeding tendencies. A total of 174 patients participated and were subjected to permuted block randomization (T1a vs. others), resulting in 88 patients in the V-Loc™ group and 86 in the Monofix<sup>®</sup>-PDO group. The primary outcome was the resection bed suture time. The secondary outcomes were total suture use time, warm ischemia time, console time (for efficacy), estimated blood loss, hemoglobin change, and 90-day treatment-related adverse events (for safety). All patients were scheduled for follow-up visits for up to three months postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary outcome, resection bed suture time, did not significantly differ between the V-Loc™ and Monofix<sup>®</sup>-PDO groups (4.8 ± 2.6 vs. 4.5 ± 2.6 min, p = 0.531). Secondary outcomes, including total suture used time (5.3 ± 2.8 vs. 4.8 ± 2.6 min, p = 0.289) and warm ischemic time (15.6 ± 5.5 vs. 15.4 ± 5.4 min, p = 0.834), were comparable between the two groups. In terms of safety outcomes, changes in serum hemoglobin levels did not show significant differences on postoperative days 1, 3, and 14 (P = 0.537, 0.353, and 0.840, respectively). No device-related adverse events were observed during the 90-day follow-up period in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Monofix<sup>®</sup>-PDO demonstrated non-inferior to V-Loc in terms of both safety and efficacy in patients undergoing RAPN. This trial is registered on cris.nih.go.kr as KCT0006809 (Registration date: 02/19/2021).</p>","PeriodicalId":9131,"journal":{"name":"BMC Cancer","volume":"24 1","pages":"1458"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-13213-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Monofix®-PDO compared to V-Loc™ for tumor bed suturing during robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RAPN).

Methods: A randomized, controlled, multicenter, single-blinded trial was conducted across four tertiary institutions. Patients with T1-2 stage renal masses scheduled for RAPN were enrolled. The exclusion criteria included patients not deemed in need of bed suturing, those with a history of prior chemotherapy or immunotherapy, and those with severe systemic diseases or high bleeding tendencies. A total of 174 patients participated and were subjected to permuted block randomization (T1a vs. others), resulting in 88 patients in the V-Loc™ group and 86 in the Monofix®-PDO group. The primary outcome was the resection bed suture time. The secondary outcomes were total suture use time, warm ischemia time, console time (for efficacy), estimated blood loss, hemoglobin change, and 90-day treatment-related adverse events (for safety). All patients were scheduled for follow-up visits for up to three months postoperatively.

Results: The primary outcome, resection bed suture time, did not significantly differ between the V-Loc™ and Monofix®-PDO groups (4.8 ± 2.6 vs. 4.5 ± 2.6 min, p = 0.531). Secondary outcomes, including total suture used time (5.3 ± 2.8 vs. 4.8 ± 2.6 min, p = 0.289) and warm ischemic time (15.6 ± 5.5 vs. 15.4 ± 5.4 min, p = 0.834), were comparable between the two groups. In terms of safety outcomes, changes in serum hemoglobin levels did not show significant differences on postoperative days 1, 3, and 14 (P = 0.537, 0.353, and 0.840, respectively). No device-related adverse events were observed during the 90-day follow-up period in either group.

Conclusions: Monofix®-PDO demonstrated non-inferior to V-Loc in terms of both safety and efficacy in patients undergoing RAPN. This trial is registered on cris.nih.go.kr as KCT0006809 (Registration date: 02/19/2021).

机器人肾部分切除术中切除床缝合MONOFIX®与V-loc™的随机试验。
背景目的:评估Monofix®-PDO与V-Loc™相比,在机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术(RAPN)中用于肿瘤床缝合的临床疗效和安全性:四家三级医疗机构开展了一项随机、对照、多中心、单盲试验。方法:在四家三级医院开展了一项随机对照、多中心、单盲试验,计划对 T1-2 期肾脏肿块患者进行 RAPN。排除标准包括不需要卧床缝合的患者、既往接受过化疗或免疫治疗的患者、患有严重全身性疾病或有高出血倾向的患者。共有174名患者参与了这项研究,并进行了包块随机分组(T1a与其他),结果V-Loc™组有88名患者,Monofix®-PDO组有86名患者。主要结果是切除床缝合时间。次要结果是总缝合时间、温热缺血时间、控制台时间(疗效)、估计失血量、血红蛋白变化和 90 天治疗相关不良事件(安全性)。所有患者均在术后三个月内接受随访:主要结果是切除床缝合时间,V-Loc™组和Monofix®-PDO组之间无明显差异(4.8 ± 2.6 vs. 4.5 ± 2.6 min,p = 0.531)。包括总缝合使用时间(5.3 ± 2.8 vs. 4.8 ± 2.6 分钟,p = 0.289)和热缺血时间(15.6 ± 5.5 vs. 15.4 ± 5.4 分钟,p = 0.834)在内的次要结果在两组之间具有可比性。在安全性结果方面,术后第 1、3 和 14 天血清血红蛋白水平的变化无显著差异(P = 0.537、0.353 和 0.840)。在 90 天的随访期间,两组均未观察到与设备相关的不良事件:结论:Monofix®-PDO 对接受 RAPN 治疗的患者的安全性和有效性均不优于 V-Loc。该试验在cris.nih.go.kr上注册为KCT0006809(注册日期:02/19/2021)。
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
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1204
审稿时长
6.8 months
期刊介绍: BMC Cancer is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of cancer research, including the pathophysiology, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancers. The journal welcomes submissions concerning molecular and cellular biology, genetics, epidemiology, and clinical trials.
×
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