机器人肺部大部切除术无需进行常规常规泄漏检测

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

方法在排除因乳糜胸或胸腔积液过多而接受 2 天或 2 天以上术后引流的患者后,本研究纳入了 2019 年 2 月至 2023 年 11 月期间在我院接受微创方法肺大部切除术的 578 例患者。所有患者分为两组,包括胸腔镜(471 人)和机器人(107 人)。所有胸腔镜入路患者都进行了常规漏气检测,而机器人入路患者则没有。在对两组患者的背景进行倾向评分匹配后,对围手术期的结果进行了比较(每组 100 人)。主要终点是术后第2天(POD)或之后的引流管拔除率。此外,还确定了与机器人组术后第2天或更晚移除引流管相关的因素。结果两组术后第2天或更晚移除引流管的比率无显著差异(P = 0.011)。多变量分析确定了机器人方法中 POD2 或更晚时引流管移除的相关因素,结果显示密封剂的应用(p = 0.002)和肺叶切除术(与肺段切除术相比,p = 0.034)有显著相关性。结论总之,即使没有进行漏气检测,机器人方法进行肺大部切除术也能在手术当天或 POD1 时实现与传统胸腔镜方法相当的引流管移除率。不过,对于需要放置密封剂或接受肺叶切除术的特定患者来说,机器人方法可能会有所帮助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Routine conventional leak test is not required for robotic major pulmonary resections

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.

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
General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
142
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.
×
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