Maimaitiaili Maimaitiming, Duolikun Yasheng, Yierxiatijiang Ainiwaer, Y L Li, Aikebaier Aii, J Wang, Limu Ke
{"title":"[机器人辅助食管裂孔疝修补术与腹腔镜食管裂孔疝修补术的临床效果:回顾性比较研究]。","authors":"Maimaitiaili Maimaitiming, Duolikun Yasheng, Yierxiatijiang Ainiwaer, Y L Li, Aikebaier Aii, J Wang, Limu Ke","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn112139-20230128-00037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To analyze the short-term clinical effects of robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of the hiatal hernia. <b>Methods:</b> The clinical data of 56 patients underwent minimally invasive hiatal hernia repair from January 2021 to January 2022 in the Department of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Hernias and Abdominal Wall Surgery, People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region were retrospectively analyzed. There were 32 males and 24 females, aging (59.7±10.7) years (range: 28 to 75 years). All patients were divided into laparoscopy group (<i>n</i>=27) and robot group (<i>n</i>=29) according to surgical procedures. Perioperative conditions, hospital stay, and improvement in symptoms before and after surgery were compared between the two groups by the <i>t</i> test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test and <i>χ</i><sup>2</sup> test. <b>Results:</b> All surgical procedures were successfully completed, without conversion to laparotomy or change in operation mode. There were no serious complications related to the operation. The intraoperative blood loss of the robot group was less than that of the laparoscopic group (<i>M</i> (IQR)): (20 (110) ml <i>vs.</i> 40 (80) ml, <i>Z</i>=-4.098, <i>P</i><0.01). The operation time ((111.7±33.6) minutes <i>vs.</i> (120.4±35.0) minutes, <i>t</i>=-0.943, <i>P</i>=0.350) and hospitalization time ((3.9±1.4) days <i>vs.</i> (4.7±1.9) days, <i>t</i>=-1.980, <i>P</i>=0.053) of the robot group and the laparoscopic group were similar. Follow-up for 12 months after the operation showed no postoperative complications and recurrence. The score of the health-related quality of life questionnaire for gastroesophageal reflux disease in the robot group decreased from 10.8±2.8 before the operation to 6.5±0.6 after the operation, and that in the laparoscopic group decreased from 10.6±2.1 before the operation to 6.3±0.6 after the operation. There was no difference in the influence of different surgical methods on the change in score (<i>t</i>=0.030,<i>P</i>=0.976). <b>Conclusion:</b> Compared with laparoscopic repair of the hiatal hernia, robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair has the advantages of less bleeding, rapid postoperative recovery and good short-term effect.</p>","PeriodicalId":23966,"journal":{"name":"Zhonghua wai ke za zhi [Chinese journal of surgery]","volume":"61 6","pages":"498-502"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Clinical effects of robot-assisted esophageal hiatal hernia repair and laparoscopic esophageal hiatal hernia repair: a retrospective comparative study].\",\"authors\":\"Maimaitiaili Maimaitiming, Duolikun Yasheng, Yierxiatijiang Ainiwaer, Y L Li, Aikebaier Aii, J Wang, Limu Ke\",\"doi\":\"10.3760/cma.j.cn112139-20230128-00037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To analyze the short-term clinical effects of robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of the hiatal hernia. <b>Methods:</b> The clinical data of 56 patients underwent minimally invasive hiatal hernia repair from January 2021 to January 2022 in the Department of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Hernias and Abdominal Wall Surgery, People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region were retrospectively analyzed. There were 32 males and 24 females, aging (59.7±10.7) years (range: 28 to 75 years). All patients were divided into laparoscopy group (<i>n</i>=27) and robot group (<i>n</i>=29) according to surgical procedures. Perioperative conditions, hospital stay, and improvement in symptoms before and after surgery were compared between the two groups by the <i>t</i> test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test and <i>χ</i><sup>2</sup> test. <b>Results:</b> All surgical procedures were successfully completed, without conversion to laparotomy or change in operation mode. There were no serious complications related to the operation. The intraoperative blood loss of the robot group was less than that of the laparoscopic group (<i>M</i> (IQR)): (20 (110) ml <i>vs.</i> 40 (80) ml, <i>Z</i>=-4.098, <i>P</i><0.01). The operation time ((111.7±33.6) minutes <i>vs.</i> (120.4±35.0) minutes, <i>t</i>=-0.943, <i>P</i>=0.350) and hospitalization time ((3.9±1.4) days <i>vs.</i> (4.7±1.9) days, <i>t</i>=-1.980, <i>P</i>=0.053) of the robot group and the laparoscopic group were similar. Follow-up for 12 months after the operation showed no postoperative complications and recurrence. The score of the health-related quality of life questionnaire for gastroesophageal reflux disease in the robot group decreased from 10.8±2.8 before the operation to 6.5±0.6 after the operation, and that in the laparoscopic group decreased from 10.6±2.1 before the operation to 6.3±0.6 after the operation. There was no difference in the influence of different surgical methods on the change in score (<i>t</i>=0.030,<i>P</i>=0.976). <b>Conclusion:</b> Compared with laparoscopic repair of the hiatal hernia, robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair has the advantages of less bleeding, rapid postoperative recovery and good short-term effect.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zhonghua wai ke za zhi [Chinese journal of surgery]\",\"volume\":\"61 6\",\"pages\":\"498-502\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zhonghua wai ke za zhi [Chinese journal of surgery]\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112139-20230128-00037\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zhonghua wai ke za zhi [Chinese journal of surgery]","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112139-20230128-00037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:分析机器人辅助和腹腔镜下修补裂孔疝的近期临床效果。方法:回顾性分析新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院微创外科、疝及腹壁外科2021年1月至2022年1月行微创裂孔疝修补术的56例患者的临床资料。男性32例,女性24例,年龄(59.7±10.7)岁(28 ~ 75岁)。根据手术方式将患者分为腹腔镜组(27例)和机器人组(29例)。采用t检验、Wilcoxon秩和检验和χ2检验比较两组患者围手术期情况、住院时间、手术前后症状改善情况。结果:所有手术均顺利完成,未转开腹或改变手术方式。手术无严重并发症。机器人组术中出血量小于腹腔镜组(M (IQR)):(20 (110) ml vs. 40 (80) ml, Z=-4.098, pv。(120.4±35.0)分钟,t=-0.943, P=0.350),住院时间((3.9±1.4)天vs(4.7±1.9)天,t=-1.980, P=0.053),机器人组与腹腔镜组相似。术后随访12个月,无术后并发症及复发。机器人组胃食管反流病健康相关生活质量问卷得分由术前10.8±2.8分降至术后6.5±0.6分,腹腔镜组由术前10.6±2.1分降至术后6.3±0.6分。不同手术方式对评分变化的影响差异无统计学意义(t=0.030,P=0.976)。结论:与腹腔镜下裂孔疝修补术相比,机器人辅助裂孔疝修补术具有出血少、术后恢复快、近期效果好等优点。
[Clinical effects of robot-assisted esophageal hiatal hernia repair and laparoscopic esophageal hiatal hernia repair: a retrospective comparative study].
Objective: To analyze the short-term clinical effects of robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of the hiatal hernia. Methods: The clinical data of 56 patients underwent minimally invasive hiatal hernia repair from January 2021 to January 2022 in the Department of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Hernias and Abdominal Wall Surgery, People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region were retrospectively analyzed. There were 32 males and 24 females, aging (59.7±10.7) years (range: 28 to 75 years). All patients were divided into laparoscopy group (n=27) and robot group (n=29) according to surgical procedures. Perioperative conditions, hospital stay, and improvement in symptoms before and after surgery were compared between the two groups by the t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test and χ2 test. Results: All surgical procedures were successfully completed, without conversion to laparotomy or change in operation mode. There were no serious complications related to the operation. The intraoperative blood loss of the robot group was less than that of the laparoscopic group (M (IQR)): (20 (110) ml vs. 40 (80) ml, Z=-4.098, P<0.01). The operation time ((111.7±33.6) minutes vs. (120.4±35.0) minutes, t=-0.943, P=0.350) and hospitalization time ((3.9±1.4) days vs. (4.7±1.9) days, t=-1.980, P=0.053) of the robot group and the laparoscopic group were similar. Follow-up for 12 months after the operation showed no postoperative complications and recurrence. The score of the health-related quality of life questionnaire for gastroesophageal reflux disease in the robot group decreased from 10.8±2.8 before the operation to 6.5±0.6 after the operation, and that in the laparoscopic group decreased from 10.6±2.1 before the operation to 6.3±0.6 after the operation. There was no difference in the influence of different surgical methods on the change in score (t=0.030,P=0.976). Conclusion: Compared with laparoscopic repair of the hiatal hernia, robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair has the advantages of less bleeding, rapid postoperative recovery and good short-term effect.