Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Splenectomy in Children: A Single Center Comparative Study.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-08 DOI:10.1089/lap.2023.0221
Yuebin Zhang, Shuhao Zhang, Qingjiang Chen, Duote Cai, Wenjuan Luo, Yi Jin, Zhigang Gao
{"title":"Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Splenectomy in Children: A Single Center Comparative Study.","authors":"Yuebin Zhang, Shuhao Zhang, Qingjiang Chen, Duote Cai, Wenjuan Luo, Yi Jin, Zhigang Gao","doi":"10.1089/lap.2023.0221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> To explore the safety, efficacy, advantages, and disadvantages of robotic-assisted splenectomy (RS) in children by analyzing and comparing the clinical data of RS and laparoscopic splenectomy (LS). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The clinical data of 35 children who underwent laparoscopic or RS or partial splenectomy from February 2010 to October 2022 were included. A retrospective analysis based on general information, clinical data, and prognosis were performed. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Among 35 cases, 14 cases, and 21 cases underwent RS and LS, respectively. The average operation time was 167 (120-224) minutes in the RS group and 176 (166-188) minutes in the LS group. The intraoperative blood loss was significantly larger in LS group than RS group (<i>P</i> = .0009). The length of hospital stay was significantly longer in LS group than RS group (<i>P</i> = .0015), and the hospitalization cost was significantly higher in RS group than LS group (<i>P</i> < .0001). There were no cases of conversion to laparotomy in the RS group, but two cases in the LS group. In terms of postoperative complications, there were one and three cases in the RS and LS groups, respectively. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The Robotic Surgical System was safe and feasible in pediatric splenectomy or partial splenectomy which was an alternative to laparoscopic surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":50166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques","volume":" ","pages":"541-545"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2023.0221","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To explore the safety, efficacy, advantages, and disadvantages of robotic-assisted splenectomy (RS) in children by analyzing and comparing the clinical data of RS and laparoscopic splenectomy (LS). Methods: The clinical data of 35 children who underwent laparoscopic or RS or partial splenectomy from February 2010 to October 2022 were included. A retrospective analysis based on general information, clinical data, and prognosis were performed. Results: Among 35 cases, 14 cases, and 21 cases underwent RS and LS, respectively. The average operation time was 167 (120-224) minutes in the RS group and 176 (166-188) minutes in the LS group. The intraoperative blood loss was significantly larger in LS group than RS group (P = .0009). The length of hospital stay was significantly longer in LS group than RS group (P = .0015), and the hospitalization cost was significantly higher in RS group than LS group (P < .0001). There were no cases of conversion to laparotomy in the RS group, but two cases in the LS group. In terms of postoperative complications, there were one and three cases in the RS and LS groups, respectively. Conclusion: The Robotic Surgical System was safe and feasible in pediatric splenectomy or partial splenectomy which was an alternative to laparoscopic surgery.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
儿童机器人辅助和腹腔镜脾切除术:单中心比较研究
背景:通过分析和比较机器人辅助脾脏切除术(RS)和腹腔镜脾脏切除术(LS)的临床数据,探讨机器人辅助脾脏切除术(RS)在儿童中的安全性、有效性和优缺点。方法:纳入2010年2月至2022年10月期间接受腹腔镜或RS或部分脾脏切除术的35名儿童的临床数据。根据一般信息、临床数据和预后进行回顾性分析。结果在35例患者中,分别有14例和21例接受了RS和LS手术。RS组平均手术时间为167(120-224)分钟,LS组平均手术时间为176(166-188)分钟。LS 组的术中失血量明显多于 RS 组(P = 0.0009)。LS组的住院时间明显长于RS组(P = .0015),RS组的住院费用明显高于LS组(P 结论:机器人手术系统是一种安全、有效的手术方式:机器人手术系统在小儿脾脏或部分脾脏切除术中安全可行,是腹腔镜手术的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
163
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques (JLAST) is the leading international peer-reviewed journal for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest thinking and advanced surgical technologies in laparoscopy, endoscopy, NOTES, and robotics. The Journal is ideally suited to surgeons who are early adopters of new technology and techniques. Recognizing that many new technologies and techniques have significant overlap with several surgical specialties, JLAST is the first journal to focus on these topics both in general and pediatric surgery, and includes other surgical subspecialties such as: urology, gynecologic surgery, thoracic surgery, and more.
期刊最新文献
Application of Intraoperative Ultrasound in Laparoscopic Liver Resection with Pringle Maneuver: A Comparative Study with the Pringle Maneuver. Short-Term Efficacy of LCBDE+LC Versus ERCP/EST+LC in the Treatment of Cholelithiasis Combined with Common Bile Duct Stones: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Evaluation of Surgical Results and Effectiveness of Laparoscopic Transabdominal Preperitoneal and Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Approaches in Bilateral Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Randomized Analysis. Is Endoscopic Resection Essential for Patients with Type 1 Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumor? Is It Necessary to Endoscopically Evaluate the Anastomosis in Robotic or Laparoscopic Surgical Procedures for Colorectal Cancer?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1