«上一篇/Previous Article|本期目录/Table of Contents|下一篇/Next Article»

《福建医科大学学报》[ISSN:1672-4194/CN:35-1192/R]

卷:

第53卷

期数:

2019年04期

页码:

261-263

栏目:

临床研究

出版日期:

2019-08-31

文章信息/Info

Title:

Comparative Study of Da Vinci Robot-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy of Cervical Cancer and Traditional Laparoscopy

文章编号:

1672-4194(2019)04-0261-03

作者:

陈德招;  陈佩芳

福建医科大学 附属协和医院妇产科,福州 350001

Author(s):

CHEN Dezhao;  CHEN Peifang

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou 350001, China

关键词:

机器人;  腹部;  腹腔镜;  宫颈肿瘤

Keywords:

robotics;  abdomen;  laparoscopes;  uterine cervical neoplasms

分类号:

R-05; R443.8; R737.3

DOI:

-

文献标志码:

-

摘要:

目的 对比分析达芬奇机器人辅助腹腔镜与传统腹腔镜2种手术方式在宫颈癌根治术中的临床应用价值。 方法 回顾性分析35例宫颈癌(IB1-ⅡA1期)根治术患者的临床资料,其中机器人手术系统辅助腹腔镜下宫颈癌根治术16例(机器人组),传统腹腔镜宫颈癌根治术19例(腹腔镜组)。对比2组指标:手术时间、手术出血量、淋巴结切除数目、胃肠道功能恢复时间、术后尿管拔除时间、手术并发症发生率等。 结果 35例手术均顺利完成,无中转开腹或更改手术方式。机器人组与腹腔镜组手术时间分别为(303.26±52.33)min和(201.34±48.76)min,手术出血量为(67.38±17.26)mL和(90.34±33.21)mL,胃肠道功能恢复时间(34.6±16.3 )h和(53.9±11.6)h,术后尿管拔除时间(16.70±6.33)d和(20.36±7.54)d,2组手术并发症发生率分别为12.5%和21.1%,以上指标差别均有统计学意义(P<0.05); 但2组的淋巴结切除数目分别为(35.21±14.33)枚和(33.18±13.54)枚,差别无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 达芬奇机器人辅助腹腔镜在宫颈癌手术方面较传统腹腔镜手术有创伤小、恢复快等优势。

Abstract:

Objective To compare and analyze the clinical application value of Da Vinci robot-assisted laparoscopy with traditional laparoscopy in cervical cancer radical hysterectomy. Methods The clinical data of 35 cases of radical operation for cervical cancer(stage ⅠB1-ⅡA1)were retrospectively analyzed. 16 cases underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical operation for cervical cancer(robot group)and 19 cases underwent traditional laparoscopic radical operation for cervical cancer(laparoscopic group). Following factors from both groups were recorded and compared amonge them: operation time, amount of bleeding, number of lymph node resection, recovery time of gastrointestinal function, time of catheter removal after operation, incidence of complications, and other factors. Results All 35 operations were successfully completed without conversion to laparotomy or change of surgical procedure. The operation time of robotic group and laparoscopic group was(303.26±52.33)min and(201.34±48.76)min, respectively. The bleeding volume was(67.38±17.26)mL and(90.34±33.21)mL, the recovery time of gastrointestinal function was(34.6±16.3)h and(53.9±11.6)h, and the removal time of urinary catheter was(16.70±6.33)d and(20.36±7.54)d, the incidence of surgical complications in the two groups was 12.5% and 21.1%, respectively. There were significant differences in the above indicators(P<0.05). However, the number of lymphadenectomies in the two groups was(35.21±14.33)and(33.18±13.54), respectively, with no significant difference(P>0.05). Conclusion Da Vinci robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in cervical cancer surgery, compared with traditional laparoscopic surgery, has advantages of less trauma and faster recovery.

参考文献/References:

[1] 周 晖,刘昀昀,林仲秋.《2017-NCCN宫颈癌临床实践指南》解读[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2017,33(1):100-107. [2] Sert B M,Abeler V M.Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy(Piver type Ⅲ)with pelvic node dissection:case report[J].Eur J Gynaecol Oncol,2006,27(5):531-533. [3] 冯秀山,陈佩芳.腹腔镜下子宫颈癌根治术与经腹手术的对比研究[J]. 福建医科大学学报, 2016,50(6):428-430. [4] Bedient C E,Magrina J F,Noble BN,et al. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy[J].Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2009,201(6):566-567. [5] Sert M B,Erakr R.Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynaecological oncology; initial experience at Oslo Radium Hospital and 16 months follow-up[J]. Int J Med Robot, 2009,5(4):410-414. [6] Pilk A R,Marek R,Dzvincuk P,et al. “Learning curve” robotic radical hysterectomy compared to standardized laparoscopy assisted radical vaginal and open radical hysterectomy[J]. Ceska Gynekol, 2013,78(1):20-27. [7] Moore M J,Bennett C L.The learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.The southern surgeons club[J].Am J Surg, 1995,170(1):55-59. [8] 曹莉莉,徐惠成,梁志清,等. 达芬奇机器人手术系统在宫颈癌广泛子宫切除手术中学习曲线的研究[J]. 实用妇产科杂志, 2015,31(9):705-708. [9] 翟青枝,叶明侠,李立安,等. 达芬奇机器人手术系统在宫颈癌根治术中学习曲线的研究[J]. 中国微创外科杂志, 2018,18(5):422-426. [10] Sert M B,Abeler R V.Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy:comparison with total laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy; one surgeon's experience at the Norwegian Radium Hospital[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2011,121(3):600-604. [11] Yim G W,Kimm Y T. Robotic surgery in gynecologic cancer[J]. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 2012,24(1)14-23. [12] Kruijdenberg C B,Vandeneinden L C,Hendriks J C,et al. Robot-assisted versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer, a review[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2011,120(3):334-339. [13] Thiel D D,Winfield H N. Robotics in urology: past,present,and future[J]. J Endourol, 2008,22(4):825-830. [14] Magrina J F,Zanagnolo V L. Robotic surgery for cervical cancer[J]. Yonsei Med J, 2008,49(6):879-885.

相似文献/References:

[1]林兰英,林献忠,林财珠,等.右美托咪定辅助超声引导腹横肌平面阻滞在老年患者腹股沟斜疝修补术中的应用[J].福建医科大学学报,2016,50(05):325.
　LIN Lanying,LIN Xianzhong,LIN Caizhu,et al.Application of Ultrasound-guided Transverses Abdominis Plane Block Assistedwith Dexmedetomidine in the Elderly Patients Undergoing Inguinal Hernia Repair[J].Journal of Fujian Medical University,2016,50(04):325.
[2]冯秀山,陈佩芳.腹腔镜下子宫颈癌根治术与经腹手术的对比研究[J].福建医科大学学报,2016,50(06):428.
　FENG Xiushan,CHEN Peifang.Comparative Study of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomyand Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy[J].Journal of Fujian Medical University,2016,50(04):428.
[3]吴海玲,张凌宇,梁敏,等.腹横肌平面阻滞对老年患者胃癌根治术后全麻苏醒期躁动的影响[J].福建医科大学学报,2017,51(03):181.
　WU Hailing,ZHANG Lingyu,LIANG Min,et al.Effects of Transversus Abdominis Plane Block on Emergence Agitation in Elderly Patients Who Undergo Radical Gastrectomy Following General Anesthesia[J].Journal of Fujian Medical University,2017,51(04):181.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:

作者简介: 陈德招,男,主治医师,医学硕士 通讯作者: 陈佩芳. Email:fenfangsiji_cpf@163.com收稿日期: 2018-10-01

常用功能

更新日期/Last Update: 2019-10-08