机器人与腹腔镜急诊和急性护理手术:重新定义新颖性(RLEARN):在一级创伤中心,机器人胆囊切除术治疗急性胆囊炎的可行性和益处。

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open Pub Date : 2024-12-27 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1136/tsaco-2024-001522
Joshua Klein, Mekedes Lemma, Kartik Prabhakaran, Aryan Rafieezadeh, Jordan Michael Kirsch, Gabriel Rodriguez, Ilyse Blazar, Anna Jose, Bardiya Zangbar
{"title":"机器人与腹腔镜急诊和急性护理手术:重新定义新颖性(RLEARN):在一级创伤中心,机器人胆囊切除术治疗急性胆囊炎的可行性和益处。","authors":"Joshua Klein, Mekedes Lemma, Kartik Prabhakaran, Aryan Rafieezadeh, Jordan Michael Kirsch, Gabriel Rodriguez, Ilyse Blazar, Anna Jose, Bardiya Zangbar","doi":"10.1136/tsaco-2024-001522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aims to compare outcomes of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the setting of a level 1 trauma center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective study of our hospital data (2021-2024) on patients who underwent LC or RC. Using a previously validated intraoperative grading system, four grades of cholecystitis were defined as mild (A), moderate (B), severe (C), and extreme (D). Outcomes were operative times and rates of conversion to open surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 260 patients (n=130 RC and n=130 LC) were included. Patients were primarily female (69.2%), with mean age of 47±18.3 years. The majority of cases had grade B cholecystitis (41.2%). Patients undergoing RC had lower operative times compared with LC in grade B (101.87±17.54 vs 114.96±29.44 min, p=0.003) and grade C (134.68±26.97 vs 152.06±31.3 min, p=0.038). Conversion rate to open cholecystectomy were similar in both groups (p=0.19).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RC had similar results as LC in terms of operative time and in fact has significantly lower operative time in patients with grade B and grade C cholecystitis.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III-retrospective study.</p>","PeriodicalId":23307,"journal":{"name":"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open","volume":"9 1","pages":"e001522"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11683923/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robotic versus Laparoscopic Emergency and Acute Care Surgery: Redefining Novelty (RLEARN): feasibility and benefit of robotic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis at a level 1 trauma center.\",\"authors\":\"Joshua Klein, Mekedes Lemma, Kartik Prabhakaran, Aryan Rafieezadeh, Jordan Michael Kirsch, Gabriel Rodriguez, Ilyse Blazar, Anna Jose, Bardiya Zangbar\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/tsaco-2024-001522\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aims to compare outcomes of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the setting of a level 1 trauma center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective study of our hospital data (2021-2024) on patients who underwent LC or RC. Using a previously validated intraoperative grading system, four grades of cholecystitis were defined as mild (A), moderate (B), severe (C), and extreme (D). Outcomes were operative times and rates of conversion to open surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 260 patients (n=130 RC and n=130 LC) were included. Patients were primarily female (69.2%), with mean age of 47±18.3 years. The majority of cases had grade B cholecystitis (41.2%). Patients undergoing RC had lower operative times compared with LC in grade B (101.87±17.54 vs 114.96±29.44 min, p=0.003) and grade C (134.68±26.97 vs 152.06±31.3 min, p=0.038). Conversion rate to open cholecystectomy were similar in both groups (p=0.19).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RC had similar results as LC in terms of operative time and in fact has significantly lower operative time in patients with grade B and grade C cholecystitis.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III-retrospective study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"e001522\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11683923/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2024-001522\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2024-001522","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究旨在比较机器人胆囊切除术(RC)与腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)在一级创伤中心的效果。方法:我们对我院(2021-2024)接受LC或RC的患者进行了回顾性研究。使用先前验证的术中分级系统,将胆囊炎分为轻度(a)、中度(B)、重度(C)和重度(D)四个级别。结果是手术时间和转向开放手术的比率。结果:共纳入260例(n=130例RC和n=130例LC)。患者以女性为主(69.2%),平均年龄47±18.3岁。多数病例为B级胆囊炎(41.2%)。与LC相比,RC患者在B级(101.87±17.54 vs 114.96±29.44 min, p=0.003)和C级(134.68±26.97 vs 152.06±31.3 min, p=0.038)的手术时间更短。两组转开腹胆囊切除术的发生率相似(p=0.19)。结论:RC与LC在手术时间上有相似的结果,事实上,在B级和C级胆囊炎患者中,RC的手术时间明显更短。证据等级:iii级-回顾性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Robotic versus Laparoscopic Emergency and Acute Care Surgery: Redefining Novelty (RLEARN): feasibility and benefit of robotic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis at a level 1 trauma center.

Background: This study aims to compare outcomes of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the setting of a level 1 trauma center.

Methods: We performed a retrospective study of our hospital data (2021-2024) on patients who underwent LC or RC. Using a previously validated intraoperative grading system, four grades of cholecystitis were defined as mild (A), moderate (B), severe (C), and extreme (D). Outcomes were operative times and rates of conversion to open surgery.

Results: In total, 260 patients (n=130 RC and n=130 LC) were included. Patients were primarily female (69.2%), with mean age of 47±18.3 years. The majority of cases had grade B cholecystitis (41.2%). Patients undergoing RC had lower operative times compared with LC in grade B (101.87±17.54 vs 114.96±29.44 min, p=0.003) and grade C (134.68±26.97 vs 152.06±31.3 min, p=0.038). Conversion rate to open cholecystectomy were similar in both groups (p=0.19).

Conclusion: RC had similar results as LC in terms of operative time and in fact has significantly lower operative time in patients with grade B and grade C cholecystitis.

Level of evidence: Level III-retrospective study.

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
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
71
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Multidisciplinary management of transorbital transverse penetrating brain injury by retained knife. Integrating survivors with frontline trauma providers: a winning strategy for providers, survivors, and research integrity. Financial toxicity and firearm injury: exploring financial needs of participants in a hospital-based violence intervention program. Firearm injury survivors report extreme high risk for poor physical and mental health outcomes early after hospital discharge necessitating multidisciplinary care. Randomized clinical trial of peer integrated collaborative care intervention after physical injury.
×
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