骨盆深部订书机的使用和可见度:计算机化直角直线订书机与曲线切割订书机的人体尸体比较研究。

Toyooki Sonoda, Juan Carlos Verdeja, David E Rivadeneira
{"title":"骨盆深部订书机的使用和可见度:计算机化直角直线订书机与曲线切割订书机的人体尸体比较研究。","authors":"Toyooki Sonoda,&nbsp;Juan Carlos Verdeja,&nbsp;David E Rivadeneira","doi":"10.1186/1750-1164-5-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Distal rectal stapling is often challenging because of limited space and visibility. We compared two stapling devices in the distal rectum in a cadaver study: the iDrive™ right angle linear cutter (RALC) (Covidien, New Haven, CT) and the CONTOUR® curved cutter (CC) (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twelve male cadavers underwent pelvic dissection by 4 surgeons. After rectal mobilization as in a total mesorectal excision, the staplers were applied to the rectum as deep as possible in both the coronal and sagittal positions. The distance from the pelvic floor was measured for each application. A questionnaire rated the visibility and access of the stapling devices. Measurements were taken between pelvic landmarks to see what anatomic factors hinder the placement of a distal rectal stapler.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median (range) distance of the stapler from the pelvic floor in the coronal position for the RALC was 1.0 cm (0-4.0) vs. 2.0 cm (0-5.0) for the CC, p = 0.003. In the sagittal position, the median distance was 1.6 cm (0-3.5) for the RALC and 3.3 cm (0-5.0) for the CC, p < 0.0001. The RALC scored better than the CC in respect to: 1. interference by the symphysis pubis, 2. number of stapler readjustments, 3. ease of placement in the pelvis, 4. impediment of visibility, 5. ability to hold and retain tissue, 6. visibility rating, and 7. access in the pelvis. A shorter distance between the tip of the coccyx and the pubic symphysis correlated with a longer distance of the stapler from the pelvic floor (p = 0.002).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The RALC is superior to the CC in terms of access, visibility, and ease of placement in the deep pelvis. This could provide important clinical benefit to both patient and surgeon during difficult rectal surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":87428,"journal":{"name":"Annals of surgical innovation and research","volume":"5 ","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1750-1164-5-7","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stapler access and visibility in the deep pelvis: A comparative human cadaver study between a computerized right angle linear cutter versus a curved cutting stapler.\",\"authors\":\"Toyooki Sonoda,&nbsp;Juan Carlos Verdeja,&nbsp;David E Rivadeneira\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/1750-1164-5-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Distal rectal stapling is often challenging because of limited space and visibility. We compared two stapling devices in the distal rectum in a cadaver study: the iDrive™ right angle linear cutter (RALC) (Covidien, New Haven, CT) and the CONTOUR® curved cutter (CC) (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twelve male cadavers underwent pelvic dissection by 4 surgeons. After rectal mobilization as in a total mesorectal excision, the staplers were applied to the rectum as deep as possible in both the coronal and sagittal positions. The distance from the pelvic floor was measured for each application. A questionnaire rated the visibility and access of the stapling devices. Measurements were taken between pelvic landmarks to see what anatomic factors hinder the placement of a distal rectal stapler.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median (range) distance of the stapler from the pelvic floor in the coronal position for the RALC was 1.0 cm (0-4.0) vs. 2.0 cm (0-5.0) for the CC, p = 0.003. In the sagittal position, the median distance was 1.6 cm (0-3.5) for the RALC and 3.3 cm (0-5.0) for the CC, p < 0.0001. The RALC scored better than the CC in respect to: 1. interference by the symphysis pubis, 2. number of stapler readjustments, 3. ease of placement in the pelvis, 4. impediment of visibility, 5. ability to hold and retain tissue, 6. visibility rating, and 7. access in the pelvis. A shorter distance between the tip of the coccyx and the pubic symphysis correlated with a longer distance of the stapler from the pelvic floor (p = 0.002).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The RALC is superior to the CC in terms of access, visibility, and ease of placement in the deep pelvis. This could provide important clinical benefit to both patient and surgeon during difficult rectal surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87428,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of surgical innovation and research\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1750-1164-5-7\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of surgical innovation and research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1164-5-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of surgical innovation and research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1164-5-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:直肠远端吻合术由于空间和能见度有限,通常具有挑战性。在一项尸体研究中,我们比较了两种用于直肠远端缝合的装置:iDrive™直角直线切割器(RALC) (Covidien, New Haven, CT)和CONTOUR®曲线切割器(CC) (Ethicon endosurgery, Cincinnati, OH)。方法:由4位外科医生对12具男性尸体进行盆腔解剖。直肠活动后,如全肠系膜切除,吻合器在冠状位和矢状位尽可能深地应用于直肠。每次应用时测量到骨盆底的距离。一份调查问卷评估了装订设备的可见性和可及性。测量骨盆之间的标志,看看什么解剖因素阻碍放置远端直肠吻合器。结果:RALC吻合器在冠状位距骨盆底的中位距离(范围)为1.0 cm (0-4.0), CC为2.0 cm (0-5.0), p = 0.003。在矢状位,RALC的中位距离为1.6 cm (0-3.5), CC的中位距离为3.3 cm (0-5.0), p < 0.0001。在以下方面,RALC比CC得分更高:耻骨联合的干扰,2。订书机数量调整,3。4.易于放置于骨盆。能见度障碍,5。保持和保留组织的能力;能见度等级,和7。进入骨盆。尾骨尖端与耻骨联合之间的距离越短,吻合器距骨盆底的距离越长(p = 0.002)。结论:RALC在进入、可见性和易于在骨盆深部放置方面优于CC。在困难的直肠手术中,这可以为患者和外科医生提供重要的临床益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Stapler access and visibility in the deep pelvis: A comparative human cadaver study between a computerized right angle linear cutter versus a curved cutting stapler.

Stapler access and visibility in the deep pelvis: A comparative human cadaver study between a computerized right angle linear cutter versus a curved cutting stapler.

Stapler access and visibility in the deep pelvis: A comparative human cadaver study between a computerized right angle linear cutter versus a curved cutting stapler.

Stapler access and visibility in the deep pelvis: A comparative human cadaver study between a computerized right angle linear cutter versus a curved cutting stapler.

Purpose: Distal rectal stapling is often challenging because of limited space and visibility. We compared two stapling devices in the distal rectum in a cadaver study: the iDrive™ right angle linear cutter (RALC) (Covidien, New Haven, CT) and the CONTOUR® curved cutter (CC) (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH).

Methods: Twelve male cadavers underwent pelvic dissection by 4 surgeons. After rectal mobilization as in a total mesorectal excision, the staplers were applied to the rectum as deep as possible in both the coronal and sagittal positions. The distance from the pelvic floor was measured for each application. A questionnaire rated the visibility and access of the stapling devices. Measurements were taken between pelvic landmarks to see what anatomic factors hinder the placement of a distal rectal stapler.

Results: The median (range) distance of the stapler from the pelvic floor in the coronal position for the RALC was 1.0 cm (0-4.0) vs. 2.0 cm (0-5.0) for the CC, p = 0.003. In the sagittal position, the median distance was 1.6 cm (0-3.5) for the RALC and 3.3 cm (0-5.0) for the CC, p < 0.0001. The RALC scored better than the CC in respect to: 1. interference by the symphysis pubis, 2. number of stapler readjustments, 3. ease of placement in the pelvis, 4. impediment of visibility, 5. ability to hold and retain tissue, 6. visibility rating, and 7. access in the pelvis. A shorter distance between the tip of the coccyx and the pubic symphysis correlated with a longer distance of the stapler from the pelvic floor (p = 0.002).

Conclusions: The RALC is superior to the CC in terms of access, visibility, and ease of placement in the deep pelvis. This could provide important clinical benefit to both patient and surgeon during difficult rectal surgery.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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