{"title":"机器人胆囊切除术与腹腔镜胆囊切除术的围手术期和患者报告的临床结果。","authors":"Randeep Wadhawan, Anmol Galhotra, Deepa Kizhakke Veetil, Arun Bhardwaj, Naveen Verma","doi":"10.4293/JSLS.2024.00051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a lack of clinical evidence from India that compare robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, single-center study compares the short-term perioperative outcomes of RAC against LC. Consecutive patients who were 18 years or older, provided informed consent, and were found to be eligible for multiport RAC or multiport LC were included in the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 120 patients were enrolled in this study (n = 80, LC group; n = 40, RAC group). The most common preoperative indication was symptomatic cholelithiasis (80% in the LC group and 52.5% in the RAC group). The mean length of hospital stay was comparable for the RAC and LC groups (1.08 ± 0.26 vs 1.13 ± 0.33 days, <i>P</i> = .406). The mean operative time was also similar between the groups (38.06 ± 9.23 minutes in the LC group vs 40 ± 9.78 minutes in the RAC group, <i>P</i> = .290). Within each group, there were no conversions, intraoperative complications, bile duct injuries, surgical site infections, or mortality at day 30 postsurgery. There was just one postoperative complication in the study population (in the LC group). On postoperative days 4 and 7, the RAC group reported significantly lower pain than the LC group (<i>P</i> = .0000 and <i>P</i> = .0122, respectively). In addition, the RAC group returned to work faster than the LC group (<i>P</i> = .0000).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings indicate that RAC and LC have comparable perioperative outcomes. There are advantages to the RAC approach in terms of postoperative pain and resumption of work.</p>","PeriodicalId":17679,"journal":{"name":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","volume":"28 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11935298/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perioperative and Patient-Reported Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.\",\"authors\":\"Randeep Wadhawan, Anmol Galhotra, Deepa Kizhakke Veetil, Arun Bhardwaj, Naveen Verma\",\"doi\":\"10.4293/JSLS.2024.00051\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a lack of clinical evidence from India that compare robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, single-center study compares the short-term perioperative outcomes of RAC against LC. Consecutive patients who were 18 years or older, provided informed consent, and were found to be eligible for multiport RAC or multiport LC were included in the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 120 patients were enrolled in this study (n = 80, LC group; n = 40, RAC group). The most common preoperative indication was symptomatic cholelithiasis (80% in the LC group and 52.5% in the RAC group). The mean length of hospital stay was comparable for the RAC and LC groups (1.08 ± 0.26 vs 1.13 ± 0.33 days, <i>P</i> = .406). The mean operative time was also similar between the groups (38.06 ± 9.23 minutes in the LC group vs 40 ± 9.78 minutes in the RAC group, <i>P</i> = .290). Within each group, there were no conversions, intraoperative complications, bile duct injuries, surgical site infections, or mortality at day 30 postsurgery. There was just one postoperative complication in the study population (in the LC group). On postoperative days 4 and 7, the RAC group reported significantly lower pain than the LC group (<i>P</i> = .0000 and <i>P</i> = .0122, respectively). In addition, the RAC group returned to work faster than the LC group (<i>P</i> = .0000).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings indicate that RAC and LC have comparable perioperative outcomes. There are advantages to the RAC approach in terms of postoperative pain and resumption of work.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons\",\"volume\":\"28 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11935298/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2024.00051\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2024.00051","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:印度缺乏比较机器人辅助胆囊切除术(RAC)和腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)的临床证据。方法:本前瞻性单中心研究比较RAC和LC的短期围手术期结果。18岁及以上、提供知情同意且符合多端口RAC或多端口LC治疗条件的连续患者被纳入研究。结果:本研究共纳入120例患者(n = 80, LC组;n = 40, RAC组)。最常见的术前指征是症状性胆石症(LC组为80%,RAC组为52.5%)。RAC组和LC组的平均住院时间相当(1.08±0.26 vs 1.13±0.33天,P = 0.406)。LC组平均手术时间为38.06±9.23 min, RAC组为40±9.78 min, P = 0.290)。两组术后30天均无转归、术中并发症、胆管损伤、手术部位感染或死亡。研究人群(LC组)只有一例术后并发症。术后第4天和第7天,RAC组报告的疼痛明显低于LC组(P =。0000, P =。0122年,分别)。此外,RAC组比LC组更快地恢复工作(P = 0.00000)。结论:我们的研究结果表明RAC和LC具有相当的围手术期预后。RAC入路在术后疼痛和恢复工作方面有优势。
Perioperative and Patient-Reported Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.
Background: There is a lack of clinical evidence from India that compare robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).
Methods: This prospective, single-center study compares the short-term perioperative outcomes of RAC against LC. Consecutive patients who were 18 years or older, provided informed consent, and were found to be eligible for multiport RAC or multiport LC were included in the study.
Results: A total of 120 patients were enrolled in this study (n = 80, LC group; n = 40, RAC group). The most common preoperative indication was symptomatic cholelithiasis (80% in the LC group and 52.5% in the RAC group). The mean length of hospital stay was comparable for the RAC and LC groups (1.08 ± 0.26 vs 1.13 ± 0.33 days, P = .406). The mean operative time was also similar between the groups (38.06 ± 9.23 minutes in the LC group vs 40 ± 9.78 minutes in the RAC group, P = .290). Within each group, there were no conversions, intraoperative complications, bile duct injuries, surgical site infections, or mortality at day 30 postsurgery. There was just one postoperative complication in the study population (in the LC group). On postoperative days 4 and 7, the RAC group reported significantly lower pain than the LC group (P = .0000 and P = .0122, respectively). In addition, the RAC group returned to work faster than the LC group (P = .0000).
Conclusion: Our findings indicate that RAC and LC have comparable perioperative outcomes. There are advantages to the RAC approach in terms of postoperative pain and resumption of work.
期刊介绍:
JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons publishes original scientific articles on basic science and technical topics in all the fields involved with laparoscopic, robotic, and minimally invasive surgery. CRSLS, MIS Case Reports from SLS is dedicated to the publication of Case Reports in the field of minimally invasive surgery. The journals seek to advance our understandings and practice of minimally invasive, image-guided surgery by providing a forum for all relevant disciplines and by promoting the exchange of information and ideas across specialties.