Hitoshi Igai, Akinobu Ida, Kazuki Numajiri, Kazuhito Nii, Mitsuhiro Kamiyoshihara
{"title":"机器人肺部大部切除术无需进行常规常规泄漏检测","authors":"Hitoshi Igai, Akinobu Ida, Kazuki Numajiri, Kazuhito Nii, Mitsuhiro Kamiyoshihara","doi":"10.1007/s11748-024-02081-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objective</h3><p>We retrospectively evaluated whether or not conventional air leak testing is necessary in robotic major pulmonary resections.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>After excluding patients who received 2 or more days of postoperative drainage for chylothorax or excessive pleural effusion, 578 patients who underwent major pulmonary resection using minimally invasive approaches between February 2019 and November 2023 at our institution were included in this study. All patients were divided into two groups including thoracoscopic (<i>n</i> = 471) and robotic (<i>n</i> = 107) approaches. Conventional air leak testing was performed in all patients in the thoracoscopic approach but not in the robotic approach. After propensity score matching of patient backgrounds between the two groups, perioperative outcomes were compared (<i>n</i> = 100 each). The primary endpoint was the rate of drain removal on postoperative day (POD) 2 or later. In addition, factors associated with drain removal on POD 2 or later in the robotic group were identified.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>The rate of drain removal at POD 2 or later was not significantly different between the two groups (<i>p</i> = 0.011). Multivariable analysis to identify factors associated with drain removal at POD2 or later in the robotic approach showed that sealant application (<i>p</i> = 0.002) and lobectomy (vs. segmentectomy, <i>p</i> = 0.034) were significantly associated.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>In conclusion, even in the absence of air leak testing, a robotic approach for major lung resections can result in a drain removal rate on the day of surgery or POD1 that is comparable to a conventional thoracoscopic approach. However, it may be useful in selected patients requiring sealant placement or undergoing lobectomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":12585,"journal":{"name":"General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Routine conventional leak test is not required for robotic major pulmonary resections\",\"authors\":\"Hitoshi Igai, Akinobu Ida, Kazuki Numajiri, Kazuhito Nii, Mitsuhiro Kamiyoshihara\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11748-024-02081-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Objective</h3><p>We retrospectively evaluated whether or not conventional air leak testing is necessary in robotic major pulmonary resections.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>After excluding patients who received 2 or more days of postoperative drainage for chylothorax or excessive pleural effusion, 578 patients who underwent major pulmonary resection using minimally invasive approaches between February 2019 and November 2023 at our institution were included in this study. All patients were divided into two groups including thoracoscopic (<i>n</i> = 471) and robotic (<i>n</i> = 107) approaches. Conventional air leak testing was performed in all patients in the thoracoscopic approach but not in the robotic approach. After propensity score matching of patient backgrounds between the two groups, perioperative outcomes were compared (<i>n</i> = 100 each). The primary endpoint was the rate of drain removal on postoperative day (POD) 2 or later. In addition, factors associated with drain removal on POD 2 or later in the robotic group were identified.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>The rate of drain removal at POD 2 or later was not significantly different between the two groups (<i>p</i> = 0.011). Multivariable analysis to identify factors associated with drain removal at POD2 or later in the robotic approach showed that sealant application (<i>p</i> = 0.002) and lobectomy (vs. segmentectomy, <i>p</i> = 0.034) were significantly associated.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>In conclusion, even in the absence of air leak testing, a robotic approach for major lung resections can result in a drain removal rate on the day of surgery or POD1 that is comparable to a conventional thoracoscopic approach. However, it may be useful in selected patients requiring sealant placement or undergoing lobectomy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12585,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-024-02081-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-024-02081-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Routine conventional leak test is not required for robotic major pulmonary resections
Objective
We retrospectively evaluated whether or not conventional air leak testing is necessary in robotic major pulmonary resections.
Methods
After excluding patients who received 2 or more days of postoperative drainage for chylothorax or excessive pleural effusion, 578 patients who underwent major pulmonary resection using minimally invasive approaches between February 2019 and November 2023 at our institution were included in this study. All patients were divided into two groups including thoracoscopic (n = 471) and robotic (n = 107) approaches. Conventional air leak testing was performed in all patients in the thoracoscopic approach but not in the robotic approach. After propensity score matching of patient backgrounds between the two groups, perioperative outcomes were compared (n = 100 each). The primary endpoint was the rate of drain removal on postoperative day (POD) 2 or later. In addition, factors associated with drain removal on POD 2 or later in the robotic group were identified.
Results
The rate of drain removal at POD 2 or later was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.011). Multivariable analysis to identify factors associated with drain removal at POD2 or later in the robotic approach showed that sealant application (p = 0.002) and lobectomy (vs. segmentectomy, p = 0.034) were significantly associated.
Conclusions
In conclusion, even in the absence of air leak testing, a robotic approach for major lung resections can result in a drain removal rate on the day of surgery or POD1 that is comparable to a conventional thoracoscopic approach. However, it may be useful in selected patients requiring sealant placement or undergoing lobectomy.
期刊介绍:
The General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery is the official publication of The Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery and The Japanese Association for Chest Surgery, the affiliated journal of The Japanese Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, that publishes clinical and experimental studies in fields related to thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.