机器人辅助与传统颈部切除术:关于围手术期和肿瘤学结果的倾向得分匹配病例对照研究。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Hyounmin Kim, Taegyeong Oh, In-Ho Cha, Hyung Jun Kim, Woong Nam, Dongwook Kim
{"title":"机器人辅助与传统颈部切除术:关于围手术期和肿瘤学结果的倾向得分匹配病例对照研究。","authors":"Hyounmin Kim, Taegyeong Oh, In-Ho Cha, Hyung Jun Kim, Woong Nam, Dongwook Kim","doi":"10.1007/s11701-024-02079-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The widespread acceptance of robotic surgery is extending to oral procedures. The demand for minimally invasive techniques is driving research into the cosmetic and oncologic benefits of robotic neck surgery. This study used propensity score matching to analyze the clinical course and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted neck dissections for oncologic efficacy and surgical safety. Between May 2020 and April 2024, 200 OSCC patients underwent surgery and 42 were excluded. The cohort included 158 patients, 128 of whom underwent unilateral neck dissection and 30 of whom underwent bilateral neck dissection. Robotic-assisted neck dissection (RAND) was performed in 36 patients while conventional transcervical neck dissection (CTND) was performed in 122 patients. Data analysis included several factors, including lymph node retrieval and perioperative outcomes, with 1:1 propensity score matching to ensure fairness. Each of the 39 neck specimens with 36 patients was selected. The CTND group was 8 years older overall than the RAND group, but otherwise similar in terms of primary site and clinical stage. The RAND group had a 55-min longer operative time and 140 cc more hemovac drainage than the CTND group, but the hospital stay and intensive care unit duration were the same, and the number of lymph nodes retrieved was the same. Survival rates also showed no difference across all stages. This shows that RAND is in no way inferior to CTND in terms of perioperative or oncologic outcomes, and demonstrates the safety of robot-assisted surgery, even in patients who require flaps or in patients with advanced stages.</p>","PeriodicalId":47616,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Robotic Surgery","volume":"18 1","pages":"323"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robot-assisted versus conventional neck dissection: a propensity score matched case-control study on perioperative and oncologic outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Hyounmin Kim, Taegyeong Oh, In-Ho Cha, Hyung Jun Kim, Woong Nam, Dongwook Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11701-024-02079-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The widespread acceptance of robotic surgery is extending to oral procedures. The demand for minimally invasive techniques is driving research into the cosmetic and oncologic benefits of robotic neck surgery. This study used propensity score matching to analyze the clinical course and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted neck dissections for oncologic efficacy and surgical safety. Between May 2020 and April 2024, 200 OSCC patients underwent surgery and 42 were excluded. The cohort included 158 patients, 128 of whom underwent unilateral neck dissection and 30 of whom underwent bilateral neck dissection. Robotic-assisted neck dissection (RAND) was performed in 36 patients while conventional transcervical neck dissection (CTND) was performed in 122 patients. Data analysis included several factors, including lymph node retrieval and perioperative outcomes, with 1:1 propensity score matching to ensure fairness. Each of the 39 neck specimens with 36 patients was selected. The CTND group was 8 years older overall than the RAND group, but otherwise similar in terms of primary site and clinical stage. The RAND group had a 55-min longer operative time and 140 cc more hemovac drainage than the CTND group, but the hospital stay and intensive care unit duration were the same, and the number of lymph nodes retrieved was the same. Survival rates also showed no difference across all stages. This shows that RAND is in no way inferior to CTND in terms of perioperative or oncologic outcomes, and demonstrates the safety of robot-assisted surgery, even in patients who require flaps or in patients with advanced stages.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47616,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Robotic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"323\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Robotic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-02079-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Robotic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-02079-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

机器人手术正被广泛接受并扩展到口腔手术中。对微创技术的需求推动了对机器人颈部手术在美容和肿瘤方面益处的研究。本研究采用倾向评分匹配法对机器人辅助颈部切除术的临床过程和术后结果进行分析,以了解其肿瘤疗效和手术安全性。2020年5月至2024年4月期间,200名OSCC患者接受了手术,其中42人被排除在外。队列中包括158名患者,其中128人接受了单侧颈部切除术,30人接受了双侧颈部切除术。36名患者接受了机器人辅助颈部切除术(RAND),122名患者接受了传统的经颈椎颈部切除术(CTND)。数据分析包括淋巴结检索和围手术期结果等多个因素,并采用 1:1 倾向评分匹配以确保公平性。在 39 个颈部标本中,每个标本都选取了 36 名患者。CTND组比RAND组总年龄大8岁,但在原发部位和临床分期方面相似。RAND 组的手术时间比 CTND 组长 55 分钟,血液引流量多 140 毫升,但住院时间和重症监护室时间相同,取回的淋巴结数量也相同。各期的存活率也没有差异。这表明,就围术期或肿瘤学结果而言,RAND丝毫不逊于CTND,并证明了机器人辅助手术的安全性,即使对需要皮瓣的患者或晚期患者也是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Robot-assisted versus conventional neck dissection: a propensity score matched case-control study on perioperative and oncologic outcomes.

The widespread acceptance of robotic surgery is extending to oral procedures. The demand for minimally invasive techniques is driving research into the cosmetic and oncologic benefits of robotic neck surgery. This study used propensity score matching to analyze the clinical course and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted neck dissections for oncologic efficacy and surgical safety. Between May 2020 and April 2024, 200 OSCC patients underwent surgery and 42 were excluded. The cohort included 158 patients, 128 of whom underwent unilateral neck dissection and 30 of whom underwent bilateral neck dissection. Robotic-assisted neck dissection (RAND) was performed in 36 patients while conventional transcervical neck dissection (CTND) was performed in 122 patients. Data analysis included several factors, including lymph node retrieval and perioperative outcomes, with 1:1 propensity score matching to ensure fairness. Each of the 39 neck specimens with 36 patients was selected. The CTND group was 8 years older overall than the RAND group, but otherwise similar in terms of primary site and clinical stage. The RAND group had a 55-min longer operative time and 140 cc more hemovac drainage than the CTND group, but the hospital stay and intensive care unit duration were the same, and the number of lymph nodes retrieved was the same. Survival rates also showed no difference across all stages. This shows that RAND is in no way inferior to CTND in terms of perioperative or oncologic outcomes, and demonstrates the safety of robot-assisted surgery, even in patients who require flaps or in patients with advanced stages.

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
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
8.70%
发文量
145
期刊介绍: The aim of the Journal of Robotic Surgery is to become the leading worldwide journal for publication of articles related to robotic surgery, encompassing surgical simulation and integrated imaging techniques. The journal provides a centralized, focused resource for physicians wishing to publish their experience or those wishing to avail themselves of the most up-to-date findings.The journal reports on advance in a wide range of surgical specialties including adult and pediatric urology, general surgery, cardiac surgery, gynecology, ENT, orthopedics and neurosurgery.The use of robotics in surgery is broad-based and will undoubtedly expand over the next decade as new technical innovations and techniques increase the applicability of its use. The journal intends to capture this trend as it develops.
×
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