肺癌完全门机器人肺叶切除术:是否有必要切除肋下标本?

IF 0.6 4区 医学 Q4 SURGERY
Acta Chirurgica Belgica Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-27 DOI:10.1080/00015458.2024.2320510
Murat Akkuş, Yunus Seyrek
{"title":"肺癌完全门机器人肺叶切除术:是否有必要切除肋下标本?","authors":"Murat Akkuş, Yunus Seyrek","doi":"10.1080/00015458.2024.2320510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The best place for specimen extraction is a relevant question since either after robotic or video-thoracoscopic lobectomy, both intercostal and subcostal routes can be potential extraction routes. In this study, we studied completely portal robotic lobectomies (CPRL-4) for pulmonary neoplasms to investigate the efficacy and feasibility of subcostal specimen removal by comparing the two techniques.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Between January 2014 and July 2021, data from 90 patients who underwent robotic thoracic surgery with a Da Vinci Surgical System SI (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Mountain View, California, USA) were collected and retrospectively analyzed. Out of 90 patients, we analyzed 36 CPRL-4 cases. We removed specimens traditionally <i>via</i> intercostal utility thoracotomy in the first 22 patients (group A) and <i>via</i> subcostal incision in the next consecutive 14 patients (group B). Operative parameters, postoperative parameters, the visual analog scale (VAS) and SF36 life quality scoring were comparatively analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean docking time was significantly higher in group B than in group A (26.2 ± 5.3 vs 17.8 ± 4.1) (<i>p</i> = .001). In terms of early-stage postoperative pain, group B had significantly lower pain scores compared to group A (<i>p</i> < .05). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of SF36 life quality scoring.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We can conclude that performing a subcostal incision is not a sophisticated process, though it significantly prolongs the docking time. Although our study is based on a small group, we noticed that removing the specimen through the subcostal incision after CPRL-4 is potentially useful, has several advantages and it is a practical, feasible, and safe method.</p><p><strong>Clinical registration number: </strong>2018/57.</p>","PeriodicalId":6935,"journal":{"name":"Acta Chirurgica Belgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Completely portal robotic lobectomy in lung cancer: is subcostal specimen removal necessary?\",\"authors\":\"Murat Akkuş, Yunus Seyrek\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00015458.2024.2320510\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The best place for specimen extraction is a relevant question since either after robotic or video-thoracoscopic lobectomy, both intercostal and subcostal routes can be potential extraction routes. In this study, we studied completely portal robotic lobectomies (CPRL-4) for pulmonary neoplasms to investigate the efficacy and feasibility of subcostal specimen removal by comparing the two techniques.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Between January 2014 and July 2021, data from 90 patients who underwent robotic thoracic surgery with a Da Vinci Surgical System SI (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Mountain View, California, USA) were collected and retrospectively analyzed. Out of 90 patients, we analyzed 36 CPRL-4 cases. We removed specimens traditionally <i>via</i> intercostal utility thoracotomy in the first 22 patients (group A) and <i>via</i> subcostal incision in the next consecutive 14 patients (group B). Operative parameters, postoperative parameters, the visual analog scale (VAS) and SF36 life quality scoring were comparatively analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean docking time was significantly higher in group B than in group A (26.2 ± 5.3 vs 17.8 ± 4.1) (<i>p</i> = .001). In terms of early-stage postoperative pain, group B had significantly lower pain scores compared to group A (<i>p</i> < .05). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of SF36 life quality scoring.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We can conclude that performing a subcostal incision is not a sophisticated process, though it significantly prolongs the docking time. Although our study is based on a small group, we noticed that removing the specimen through the subcostal incision after CPRL-4 is potentially useful, has several advantages and it is a practical, feasible, and safe method.</p><p><strong>Clinical registration number: </strong>2018/57.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6935,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Chirurgica Belgica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Chirurgica Belgica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00015458.2024.2320510\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Chirurgica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00015458.2024.2320510","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:无论是机器人肺叶切除术还是视频胸腔镜肺叶切除术,肋间和肋下都是可能的标本取出路径,因此标本取出的最佳位置是一个相关问题。在这项研究中,我们对完全肺门机器人肺叶切除术(CPRL-4)进行了研究,通过比较两种技术来探讨肋下标本取出的有效性和可行性:2014年1月至2021年7月期间,我们收集并回顾性分析了90例使用达芬奇手术系统SI(直觉外科公司,美国加利福尼亚州山景城)进行机器人胸腔手术的患者数据。在 90 例患者中,我们分析了 36 例 CPRL-4 病例。在前22例患者(A组)中,我们通过肋间实用胸廓切开术传统地取出了标本,在接下来的14例患者(B组)中,我们通过肋下切口取出了标本。对手术参数、术后参数、视觉模拟量表(VAS)和 SF36 生活质量评分进行了比较分析:结果:B组的平均对接时间明显高于A组(26.2 ± 5.3 vs 17.8 ± 4.1)(P = 0.001)。在术后早期疼痛方面,B 组的疼痛评分明显低于 A 组(P 结论:B 组的疼痛评分明显低于 A 组(P = 0.001):我们可以得出结论,虽然肋下切口会大大延长对接时间,但它并不是一个复杂的过程。虽然我们的研究是基于一个小群体,但我们注意到,在 CPRL-4 术后通过肋下切口取出标本是有潜在作用的,它有几个优点,而且是一种实用、可行和安全的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Completely portal robotic lobectomy in lung cancer: is subcostal specimen removal necessary?

Background: The best place for specimen extraction is a relevant question since either after robotic or video-thoracoscopic lobectomy, both intercostal and subcostal routes can be potential extraction routes. In this study, we studied completely portal robotic lobectomies (CPRL-4) for pulmonary neoplasms to investigate the efficacy and feasibility of subcostal specimen removal by comparing the two techniques.

Material and methods: Between January 2014 and July 2021, data from 90 patients who underwent robotic thoracic surgery with a Da Vinci Surgical System SI (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Mountain View, California, USA) were collected and retrospectively analyzed. Out of 90 patients, we analyzed 36 CPRL-4 cases. We removed specimens traditionally via intercostal utility thoracotomy in the first 22 patients (group A) and via subcostal incision in the next consecutive 14 patients (group B). Operative parameters, postoperative parameters, the visual analog scale (VAS) and SF36 life quality scoring were comparatively analyzed.

Results: The mean docking time was significantly higher in group B than in group A (26.2 ± 5.3 vs 17.8 ± 4.1) (p = .001). In terms of early-stage postoperative pain, group B had significantly lower pain scores compared to group A (p < .05). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of SF36 life quality scoring.

Conclusion: We can conclude that performing a subcostal incision is not a sophisticated process, though it significantly prolongs the docking time. Although our study is based on a small group, we noticed that removing the specimen through the subcostal incision after CPRL-4 is potentially useful, has several advantages and it is a practical, feasible, and safe method.

Clinical registration number: 2018/57.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Chirurgica Belgica
Acta Chirurgica Belgica 医学-外科
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Chirurgica Belgica (ACB) is the official journal of the Royal Belgian Society for Surgery (RBSS) and its affiliated societies. It publishes Editorials, Review papers, Original Research, and Technique related manuscripts in the broad field of Clinical Surgery.
×
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