{"title":"腹腔镜与机器人入路经肛门微创手术(TAMIS)的比较","authors":"Erica Dobbs, Damayanti Samanta, Bryan K Richmond","doi":"10.1177/00031348251358439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>IntroductionTransanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is a technique used for the management of low rectal neoplasms in properly selected patients. Transanal minimally invasive surgery may be performed using either laparoscopic or robotic platforms. Little data exists in the literature comparing the two. We hypothesize that the use of the robotic platform will facilitate superior outcomes due the advantages of the robotic platform in terms of its superior maneuverability, ease of suturing, and 3-dimensional visualization.MethodsThis retrospective study included adults who underwent a TAMIS via a robotic or laparoscopic approach in a rural tertiary care hospital between January 2016 and December 2023. Following IRB approval, patients who underwent TAMIS were identified using CPT codes 45171, 45172, 0184T, and S2900. Chart review was performed comparing approaches. Variables included patient demographics, operative time, blood loss, need for reoperation, presence of positive margins, and cost. Outcomes were compared using Fisher's Exact and Mann-Whitney U-tests (SPSS version 22.0, IBM, Armonk NY).ResultsTwenty-seven patients met inclusion criteria (19 laparoscopic and 8 robotic). Both groups did not differ significantly in age (65.47 ± 12.16 vs 54.75 ± 19.09, <i>P</i> = 0.26) and sex (male, 73.7% vs 75.0%, <i>P</i> = 1.00). Outcomes did not differ statistically across the two groups with respect to operative time (1.54 ± 0.58 vs 1.35 ± 0.22 hours, <i>P</i> = 0.33), blood loss (89.5% minimal vs 100.0% minimal, <i>P</i> = 1.00), and incidence of positive margins (10.5% vs 12.5%, <i>P</i> = 1.00). The cost of the laparoscopic TAMIS was significantly lower ($2271/case vs $15,948/case, <i>P</i> < 0.001) compared to the robotic TAMIS approach.ConclusionsLaparoscopic and robotic TAMIS yield comparable results, but the laparoscopic approach is much less costly. Prospective studies comparing surgical outcomes and procedural costs are therefore warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":7782,"journal":{"name":"American Surgeon","volume":" ","pages":"31348251358439"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of the Laparoscopic vs Robotic Approaches for Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS).\",\"authors\":\"Erica Dobbs, Damayanti Samanta, Bryan K Richmond\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00031348251358439\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>IntroductionTransanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is a technique used for the management of low rectal neoplasms in properly selected patients. Transanal minimally invasive surgery may be performed using either laparoscopic or robotic platforms. Little data exists in the literature comparing the two. We hypothesize that the use of the robotic platform will facilitate superior outcomes due the advantages of the robotic platform in terms of its superior maneuverability, ease of suturing, and 3-dimensional visualization.MethodsThis retrospective study included adults who underwent a TAMIS via a robotic or laparoscopic approach in a rural tertiary care hospital between January 2016 and December 2023. Following IRB approval, patients who underwent TAMIS were identified using CPT codes 45171, 45172, 0184T, and S2900. Chart review was performed comparing approaches. Variables included patient demographics, operative time, blood loss, need for reoperation, presence of positive margins, and cost. Outcomes were compared using Fisher's Exact and Mann-Whitney U-tests (SPSS version 22.0, IBM, Armonk NY).ResultsTwenty-seven patients met inclusion criteria (19 laparoscopic and 8 robotic). Both groups did not differ significantly in age (65.47 ± 12.16 vs 54.75 ± 19.09, <i>P</i> = 0.26) and sex (male, 73.7% vs 75.0%, <i>P</i> = 1.00). Outcomes did not differ statistically across the two groups with respect to operative time (1.54 ± 0.58 vs 1.35 ± 0.22 hours, <i>P</i> = 0.33), blood loss (89.5% minimal vs 100.0% minimal, <i>P</i> = 1.00), and incidence of positive margins (10.5% vs 12.5%, <i>P</i> = 1.00). The cost of the laparoscopic TAMIS was significantly lower ($2271/case vs $15,948/case, <i>P</i> < 0.001) compared to the robotic TAMIS approach.ConclusionsLaparoscopic and robotic TAMIS yield comparable results, but the laparoscopic approach is much less costly. Prospective studies comparing surgical outcomes and procedural costs are therefore warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Surgeon\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"31348251358439\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Surgeon\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348251358439\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348251358439","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
经肛门微创手术(TAMIS)是一种用于治疗直肠低位肿瘤的技术。经肛门微创手术可以使用腹腔镜或机器人平台进行。文献中很少有数据对两者进行比较。我们假设使用机器人平台将促进更好的结果,因为机器人平台在其优越的可操作性,易于缝合和三维可视化方面的优势。方法本回顾性研究纳入2016年1月至2023年12月在农村三级医院通过机器人或腹腔镜方法接受TAMIS的成年人。在获得IRB批准后,接受TAMIS的患者使用CPT代码45171、45172、0184T和S2900进行识别。对不同的方法进行图表回顾。变量包括患者人口统计学、手术时间、出血量、是否需要再手术、是否存在正切缘和费用。使用Fisher's Exact和Mann-Whitney u检验(SPSS 22.0版,IBM, Armonk NY)比较结果。结果27例患者符合纳入标准,其中腹腔镜19例,机器人8例。两组患者年龄(65.47±12.16 vs 54.75±19.09,P = 0.26)、性别(男性,73.7% vs 75.0%, P = 1.00)差异无统计学意义。两组的结果在手术时间(1.54±0.58 vs 1.35±0.22小时,P = 0.33)、出血量(最小89.5% vs最小100.0%,P = 1.00)和阳性切缘发生率(10.5% vs 12.5%, P = 1.00)方面无统计学差异。与机器人TAMIS方法相比,腹腔镜TAMIS的成本显著降低(2271美元/例vs 15,948美元/例,P < 0.001)。结论腹腔镜与机器人TAMIS的治疗效果相当,但成本更低。因此,比较手术结果和手术费用的前瞻性研究是有必要的。
A Comparison of the Laparoscopic vs Robotic Approaches for Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS).
IntroductionTransanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is a technique used for the management of low rectal neoplasms in properly selected patients. Transanal minimally invasive surgery may be performed using either laparoscopic or robotic platforms. Little data exists in the literature comparing the two. We hypothesize that the use of the robotic platform will facilitate superior outcomes due the advantages of the robotic platform in terms of its superior maneuverability, ease of suturing, and 3-dimensional visualization.MethodsThis retrospective study included adults who underwent a TAMIS via a robotic or laparoscopic approach in a rural tertiary care hospital between January 2016 and December 2023. Following IRB approval, patients who underwent TAMIS were identified using CPT codes 45171, 45172, 0184T, and S2900. Chart review was performed comparing approaches. Variables included patient demographics, operative time, blood loss, need for reoperation, presence of positive margins, and cost. Outcomes were compared using Fisher's Exact and Mann-Whitney U-tests (SPSS version 22.0, IBM, Armonk NY).ResultsTwenty-seven patients met inclusion criteria (19 laparoscopic and 8 robotic). Both groups did not differ significantly in age (65.47 ± 12.16 vs 54.75 ± 19.09, P = 0.26) and sex (male, 73.7% vs 75.0%, P = 1.00). Outcomes did not differ statistically across the two groups with respect to operative time (1.54 ± 0.58 vs 1.35 ± 0.22 hours, P = 0.33), blood loss (89.5% minimal vs 100.0% minimal, P = 1.00), and incidence of positive margins (10.5% vs 12.5%, P = 1.00). The cost of the laparoscopic TAMIS was significantly lower ($2271/case vs $15,948/case, P < 0.001) compared to the robotic TAMIS approach.ConclusionsLaparoscopic and robotic TAMIS yield comparable results, but the laparoscopic approach is much less costly. Prospective studies comparing surgical outcomes and procedural costs are therefore warranted.
期刊介绍:
The American Surgeon is a monthly peer-reviewed publication published by the Southeastern Surgical Congress. Its area of concentration is clinical general surgery, as defined by the content areas of the American Board of Surgery: alimentary tract (including bariatric surgery), abdomen and its contents, breast, skin and soft tissue, endocrine system, solid organ transplantation, pediatric surgery, surgical critical care, surgical oncology (including head and neck surgery), trauma and emergency surgery, and vascular surgery.