腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术和腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术与机器人重建:单个外科医生的经验和技术注意事项。

Jae Young Jang, Eui Hyuk Chong, Incheon Kang, Seok Jeon Yang, Sung Hwan Lee, Sung Hoon Choi
{"title":"腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术和腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术与机器人重建:单个外科医生的经验和技术注意事项。","authors":"Jae Young Jang,&nbsp;Eui Hyuk Chong,&nbsp;Incheon Kang,&nbsp;Seok Jeon Yang,&nbsp;Sung Hwan Lee,&nbsp;Sung Hoon Choi","doi":"10.7602/jmis.2023.26.2.72","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Despite the increasing number of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and LPD with robotic reconstruction (LPD-RR) are still valuable surgical options for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). This study introduces the surgical techniques, tips, and outcomes of our experience with LPD and LPD-RR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between March 2014 and July 2021, 122 and 48 patients underwent LPD and LPD-RR respectively, at CHA Bundang Medical Center in Korea. The operative settings, procedures, and trocar placements were identical in both approaches; however, different trocars were used. We introduced our techniques of retraction methods for Kocherization and uncinate process dissection, pancreatic reconstruction, pancreatic division, and protection using the round ligament. The perioperative surgical outcomes of LPD and LPD-RR were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline demographics of patients in the LPD and LPD-RR groups were comparable, but the LPD group had older age (65.5 ± 11.6 years vs. 60.0 ± 14.1 years, <i>p</i> = 0.009) and lesser preoperative chemotherapy (15.6% vs. 35.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.008). The proportion of malignant disease was similar (LPD group, 86.1% vs. LPD-RR group, 83.3%; <i>p</i> = 0.759). Perioperative outcomes were also comparable, including operative time, estimated blood loss, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (LPD group, 9.0% vs. LPD-RR group, 10.4%; <i>p</i> = 0.684), and major postoperative complication rates (LPD group, 14.8% vs. LPD-RR group, 6.2%; <i>p</i> = 0.082).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both LPD and LPR-RR can be safely performed by experienced surgeons with acceptable surgical outcomes. Further investigations are required to evaluate the objective benefits of robotic surgical systems in MIPD and establish widely acceptable standardized MIPD techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":73832,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c3/e9/jmis-26-2-72.PMC10280110.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with robotic reconstruction: single-surgeon experience and technical notes.\",\"authors\":\"Jae Young Jang,&nbsp;Eui Hyuk Chong,&nbsp;Incheon Kang,&nbsp;Seok Jeon Yang,&nbsp;Sung Hwan Lee,&nbsp;Sung Hoon Choi\",\"doi\":\"10.7602/jmis.2023.26.2.72\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Despite the increasing number of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and LPD with robotic reconstruction (LPD-RR) are still valuable surgical options for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). This study introduces the surgical techniques, tips, and outcomes of our experience with LPD and LPD-RR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between March 2014 and July 2021, 122 and 48 patients underwent LPD and LPD-RR respectively, at CHA Bundang Medical Center in Korea. The operative settings, procedures, and trocar placements were identical in both approaches; however, different trocars were used. We introduced our techniques of retraction methods for Kocherization and uncinate process dissection, pancreatic reconstruction, pancreatic division, and protection using the round ligament. The perioperative surgical outcomes of LPD and LPD-RR were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline demographics of patients in the LPD and LPD-RR groups were comparable, but the LPD group had older age (65.5 ± 11.6 years vs. 60.0 ± 14.1 years, <i>p</i> = 0.009) and lesser preoperative chemotherapy (15.6% vs. 35.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.008). The proportion of malignant disease was similar (LPD group, 86.1% vs. LPD-RR group, 83.3%; <i>p</i> = 0.759). Perioperative outcomes were also comparable, including operative time, estimated blood loss, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (LPD group, 9.0% vs. LPD-RR group, 10.4%; <i>p</i> = 0.684), and major postoperative complication rates (LPD group, 14.8% vs. LPD-RR group, 6.2%; <i>p</i> = 0.082).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both LPD and LPR-RR can be safely performed by experienced surgeons with acceptable surgical outcomes. Further investigations are required to evaluate the objective benefits of robotic surgical systems in MIPD and establish widely acceptable standardized MIPD techniques.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of minimally invasive surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c3/e9/jmis-26-2-72.PMC10280110.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of minimally invasive surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7602/jmis.2023.26.2.72\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7602/jmis.2023.26.2.72","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:尽管机器人胰十二指肠切除术的数量越来越多,但腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术(LPD)和机器人重建胰十二指肠切除术(LPD- rr)仍然是微创胰十二指肠切除术(MIPD)有价值的手术选择。本研究介绍了我们治疗LPD和LPD- rr的手术技术、技巧和结果。方法:2014年3月至2021年7月,在韩国CHA盆唐医疗中心分别有122名和48名患者接受了LPD和LPD- rr治疗。两种入路的手术环境、手术程序和套管针放置相同;然而,使用了不同的套管针。我们介绍了在Kocherization和钩突剥离、胰腺重建、胰腺分割和圆形韧带保护方面的牵回方法技术。比较LPD与LPD- rr围手术期手术效果。结果:LPD组和LPD- rr组患者的基线人口统计学具有可比性,但LPD组患者年龄较大(65.5±11.6岁比60.0±14.1岁,p = 0.009),术前化疗较少(15.6%比35.4%,p = 0.008)。恶性病变比例相似(LPD组为86.1%,LPD- rr组为83.3%;P = 0.759)。围手术期结果也具有可比性,包括手术时间、估计失血量、临床相关的术后胰瘘(LPD组,9.0% vs LPD- rr组,10.4%;p = 0.684),术后主要并发症发生率(LPD组14.8% vs LPD- rr组6.2%;P = 0.082)。结论:LPD和LPR-RR均可由经验丰富的外科医生安全进行,手术效果可接受。需要进一步的研究来评估机器人手术系统在MIPD中的客观效益,并建立广泛接受的标准化MIPD技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with robotic reconstruction: single-surgeon experience and technical notes.

Purpose: Despite the increasing number of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and LPD with robotic reconstruction (LPD-RR) are still valuable surgical options for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). This study introduces the surgical techniques, tips, and outcomes of our experience with LPD and LPD-RR.

Methods: Between March 2014 and July 2021, 122 and 48 patients underwent LPD and LPD-RR respectively, at CHA Bundang Medical Center in Korea. The operative settings, procedures, and trocar placements were identical in both approaches; however, different trocars were used. We introduced our techniques of retraction methods for Kocherization and uncinate process dissection, pancreatic reconstruction, pancreatic division, and protection using the round ligament. The perioperative surgical outcomes of LPD and LPD-RR were compared.

Results: Baseline demographics of patients in the LPD and LPD-RR groups were comparable, but the LPD group had older age (65.5 ± 11.6 years vs. 60.0 ± 14.1 years, p = 0.009) and lesser preoperative chemotherapy (15.6% vs. 35.4%, p = 0.008). The proportion of malignant disease was similar (LPD group, 86.1% vs. LPD-RR group, 83.3%; p = 0.759). Perioperative outcomes were also comparable, including operative time, estimated blood loss, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (LPD group, 9.0% vs. LPD-RR group, 10.4%; p = 0.684), and major postoperative complication rates (LPD group, 14.8% vs. LPD-RR group, 6.2%; p = 0.082).

Conclusion: Both LPD and LPR-RR can be safely performed by experienced surgeons with acceptable surgical outcomes. Further investigations are required to evaluate the objective benefits of robotic surgical systems in MIPD and establish widely acceptable standardized MIPD techniques.

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
期刊最新文献
Acute peritonitis caused by a ruptured urachal cyst accompanied by omphalitis in an adult: a case report and literature review. Analyzing the emergence of surgical robotics in Africa: a scoping review of pioneering procedures, platforms utilized, and outcome meta-analysis. Assessment of mechanical bowel preparation prior to nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery era: insights from a national database analysis in the United States. Automated machine learning with R: AutoML tools for beginners in clinical research. Is prophylactic abdominal drainage mandatory in laparoscopic hemicolectomy?
×
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