一项比较3D和2D腹腔镜子宫切除术临床结果的随机对照试验

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques Pub Date : 2021-04-30 DOI:10.5114/wiitm.2021.105724
T. Song, D. Kang
{"title":"一项比较3D和2D腹腔镜子宫切除术临床结果的随机对照试验","authors":"T. Song, D. Kang","doi":"10.5114/wiitm.2021.105724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction There have been a few clinical studies on the use of three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy with different results. Aim To compare the surgical outcomes of 3D versus two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign or premalignant gynecologic diseases. Material and methods In this double-blind trial, 68 patients were randomly assigned to either the 3D or 2D groups at a 1 : 1 ratio. The only difference between the two groups was the laparoscopic vision system used. The primary outcome was operative blood loss and operative time. The other surgical outcomes including failure of the intended surgery, length of hospital stay, and operative complications were also assessed. Results The baseline characteristics did not statistically significantly differ between the groups. The mean operative blood loss was not significantly different between the 3D group (74.4 ±51.6 ml) and the 2D group (79.2 ±55.4 ml) (p = 0.743). The operative time was similar in both groups (84.5 ±20.5 min vs. 87.8 ±24.4 min, p = 0.452). Moreover, no differences were observed between the groups in other surgical outcomes. Conclusions The 3D imaging system had no surgical advantage in laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign or premalignant gynecologic diseases. However, 3D laparoscopy did not have any negative effects on surgical outcomes and did not increase the surgical risk.","PeriodicalId":49361,"journal":{"name":"Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques","volume":"17 1","pages":"127 - 133"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A randomized, controlled trial comparing the clinical outcomes of 3D versus 2D laparoscopic hysterectomy\",\"authors\":\"T. Song, D. Kang\",\"doi\":\"10.5114/wiitm.2021.105724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction There have been a few clinical studies on the use of three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy with different results. Aim To compare the surgical outcomes of 3D versus two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign or premalignant gynecologic diseases. Material and methods In this double-blind trial, 68 patients were randomly assigned to either the 3D or 2D groups at a 1 : 1 ratio. The only difference between the two groups was the laparoscopic vision system used. The primary outcome was operative blood loss and operative time. The other surgical outcomes including failure of the intended surgery, length of hospital stay, and operative complications were also assessed. Results The baseline characteristics did not statistically significantly differ between the groups. The mean operative blood loss was not significantly different between the 3D group (74.4 ±51.6 ml) and the 2D group (79.2 ±55.4 ml) (p = 0.743). The operative time was similar in both groups (84.5 ±20.5 min vs. 87.8 ±24.4 min, p = 0.452). Moreover, no differences were observed between the groups in other surgical outcomes. Conclusions The 3D imaging system had no surgical advantage in laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign or premalignant gynecologic diseases. However, 3D laparoscopy did not have any negative effects on surgical outcomes and did not increase the surgical risk.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"127 - 133\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2021.105724\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2021.105724","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言有一些关于三维腹腔镜应用的临床研究,结果各不相同。目的比较三维和二维腹腔镜子宫切除术治疗妇科良性或癌前疾病的手术效果。材料和方法在这项双盲试验中,68名患者以1:1的比例随机分为3D组或2D组。两组之间唯一的区别是使用了腹腔镜视觉系统。主要结果是手术出血量和手术时间。还评估了其他手术结果,包括预期手术失败、住院时间和手术并发症。结果两组患者的基线特征差异无统计学意义。3D组(74.4±51.6ml)和2D组(79.2±55.4ml)的平均手术失血量没有显著差异(p=0.743)。两组的手术时间相似(84.5±20.5分钟vs.87.8±24.4min,p=0.452)。此外,两组在其他手术结果上也没有观察到差异。结论三维成像系统在妇科良恶性疾病腹腔镜子宫切除术中没有手术优势。然而,3D腹腔镜检查对手术结果没有任何负面影响,也没有增加手术风险。
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
A randomized, controlled trial comparing the clinical outcomes of 3D versus 2D laparoscopic hysterectomy
Introduction There have been a few clinical studies on the use of three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy with different results. Aim To compare the surgical outcomes of 3D versus two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign or premalignant gynecologic diseases. Material and methods In this double-blind trial, 68 patients were randomly assigned to either the 3D or 2D groups at a 1 : 1 ratio. The only difference between the two groups was the laparoscopic vision system used. The primary outcome was operative blood loss and operative time. The other surgical outcomes including failure of the intended surgery, length of hospital stay, and operative complications were also assessed. Results The baseline characteristics did not statistically significantly differ between the groups. The mean operative blood loss was not significantly different between the 3D group (74.4 ±51.6 ml) and the 2D group (79.2 ±55.4 ml) (p = 0.743). The operative time was similar in both groups (84.5 ±20.5 min vs. 87.8 ±24.4 min, p = 0.452). Moreover, no differences were observed between the groups in other surgical outcomes. Conclusions The 3D imaging system had no surgical advantage in laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign or premalignant gynecologic diseases. However, 3D laparoscopy did not have any negative effects on surgical outcomes and did not increase the surgical risk.
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
2.80
自引率
23.50%
发文量
48
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques serves as a forum for exchange of multidisciplinary experiences in fields such as: surgery, gynaecology, urology, gastroenterology, neurosurgery, ENT surgery, cardiac surgery, anaesthesiology and radiology, as well as other branches of medicine dealing with miniinvasive techniques.
期刊最新文献
Early-stage voiding function following uni- versus bilateral inferior vesical vessel resection during therapeutic lateral lymph node dissection with autonomic nerve sparing for advanced low rectal cancer (with video) Effect and prognosis of endoscopic intracranial hematoma removal and hematoma puncture and drainage in patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage Outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for pulmonary metastasis: who benefits the most? Meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and safety of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of rectal tumors Clinical comparative study of laparoscopic partial splenectomy and open partial splenectomy
×
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