机器人辅助与开放手术治疗根治性肾切除术合并1-2级腔静脉肿瘤血栓切除术:法国单中心经验(UroCCR研究#73)。

N. Vuong, J. Ferrière, C. Michiels, L. Calen, L. Tesi, G. Capon, H. Bensadoun, E. Alezra, V. Estrade, G. Robert, F. Bladou, J. Bernhard
{"title":"机器人辅助与开放手术治疗根治性肾切除术合并1-2级腔静脉肿瘤血栓切除术:法国单中心经验(UroCCR研究#73)。","authors":"N. Vuong, J. Ferrière, C. Michiels, L. Calen, L. Tesi, G. Capon, H. Bensadoun, E. Alezra, V. Estrade, G. Robert, F. Bladou, J. Bernhard","doi":"10.23736/S0393-2249.20.04052-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nTo assess the feasibility of Robot-assisted Radical nephrectomy with Inferior Vena Cava Thrombectomy (RRVCT) and compare peri operative and oncological outcomes of this approach to open surgery for renal tumors with Level 1-2 Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Thrombus.\n\n\nMETHODS\nWe performed a retrospective analysis of patients surgically treated for renal cancer with IVC level 1-2 thrombus in the Urology department of Bordeaux University Hospital between December 2015 and December 2019. Patients were stratified by surgical approach in two groups : open vs robotic procedures. Pre, per and post-operative data were collected within the framework of the UroCCR project (NCT03293563). Univariate and multivariate analysis using regression models were performed.\n\n\nRESULTS\nA total of 40 patients underwent Radical Nephrectomy (RN) with IVC tumor thrombus. Open and robotic surgery represented respectively 30 and 10 cases. The two groups were comparable regarding pre-operative tumor and patient characteristics. Robotic procedures were associated with lower Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) (500 vs. 1250mL, p = 0.02), shorter Intensive Care Unit stay (2 vs. 4 days, p = 0.03) and decrease of global Length Of Stay (LOS) (7 vs. 10 days, p < 0.01). Operative Time (OT) was significantly longer in the robotic group (350.5 vs. 208 min, p < 0.01). No difference were observed between the two approaches regarding complications and oncological outcomes.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nRobotic approach induced lower bleeding and shorter LOS but required longer OT. This technique is feasible and safe for selected cases and experimented surgical team. Complications rate and oncological outcomes are not different compared to standard open procedures.","PeriodicalId":49015,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robot-assisted versus open surgery for radical nephrectomy with level 1-2 vena cava tumor thrombectomy : a French monocenter experience (UroCCR study #73).\",\"authors\":\"N. Vuong, J. Ferrière, C. Michiels, L. Calen, L. Tesi, G. Capon, H. Bensadoun, E. Alezra, V. Estrade, G. Robert, F. Bladou, J. Bernhard\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S0393-2249.20.04052-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\nTo assess the feasibility of Robot-assisted Radical nephrectomy with Inferior Vena Cava Thrombectomy (RRVCT) and compare peri operative and oncological outcomes of this approach to open surgery for renal tumors with Level 1-2 Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Thrombus.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nWe performed a retrospective analysis of patients surgically treated for renal cancer with IVC level 1-2 thrombus in the Urology department of Bordeaux University Hospital between December 2015 and December 2019. Patients were stratified by surgical approach in two groups : open vs robotic procedures. Pre, per and post-operative data were collected within the framework of the UroCCR project (NCT03293563). Univariate and multivariate analysis using regression models were performed.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nA total of 40 patients underwent Radical Nephrectomy (RN) with IVC tumor thrombus. Open and robotic surgery represented respectively 30 and 10 cases. The two groups were comparable regarding pre-operative tumor and patient characteristics. Robotic procedures were associated with lower Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) (500 vs. 1250mL, p = 0.02), shorter Intensive Care Unit stay (2 vs. 4 days, p = 0.03) and decrease of global Length Of Stay (LOS) (7 vs. 10 days, p < 0.01). Operative Time (OT) was significantly longer in the robotic group (350.5 vs. 208 min, p < 0.01). No difference were observed between the two approaches regarding complications and oncological outcomes.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nRobotic approach induced lower bleeding and shorter LOS but required longer OT. This technique is feasible and safe for selected cases and experimented surgical team. Complications rate and oncological outcomes are not different compared to standard open procedures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49015,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.04052-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.04052-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

目的:评估机器人辅助根治性肾切除术联合下腔静脉血栓切除术(RRVCT)的可行性,并比较该方法与伴有1-2级下腔静脉血栓的肾肿瘤开放手术的围手术期和肿瘤预后。方法回顾性分析2015年12月至2019年12月在波尔多大学医院泌尿外科手术治疗的伴有IVC 1-2级血栓的肾癌患者。患者按手术入路分为两组:开放手术和机器人手术。术前、术中和术后数据在UroCCR项目(NCT03293563)框架内收集。采用回归模型进行单因素和多因素分析。结果40例伴有下腔静脉肿瘤血栓的患者行根治性肾切除术。开放手术30例,机器人手术10例。两组在术前肿瘤和患者特征方面具有可比性。机器人手术与较低的估计失血量(EBL)(500对1250mL, p = 0.02)、较短的重症监护病房住院时间(2天对4天,p = 0.03)和减少的总住院时间(LOS)(7天对10天,p < 0.01)相关。机器人组手术时间(OT)明显长于机器人组(350.5 min vs. 208 min, p < 0.01)。两种方法在并发症和肿瘤预后方面没有观察到差异。结论机器人入路出血少,术后LOS短,但手术时间较长。该技术在特定病例和实验外科团队中是可行和安全的。与标准开放手术相比,并发症发生率和肿瘤预后没有差异。
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
Robot-assisted versus open surgery for radical nephrectomy with level 1-2 vena cava tumor thrombectomy : a French monocenter experience (UroCCR study #73).
BACKGROUND To assess the feasibility of Robot-assisted Radical nephrectomy with Inferior Vena Cava Thrombectomy (RRVCT) and compare peri operative and oncological outcomes of this approach to open surgery for renal tumors with Level 1-2 Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Thrombus. METHODS We performed a retrospective analysis of patients surgically treated for renal cancer with IVC level 1-2 thrombus in the Urology department of Bordeaux University Hospital between December 2015 and December 2019. Patients were stratified by surgical approach in two groups : open vs robotic procedures. Pre, per and post-operative data were collected within the framework of the UroCCR project (NCT03293563). Univariate and multivariate analysis using regression models were performed. RESULTS A total of 40 patients underwent Radical Nephrectomy (RN) with IVC tumor thrombus. Open and robotic surgery represented respectively 30 and 10 cases. The two groups were comparable regarding pre-operative tumor and patient characteristics. Robotic procedures were associated with lower Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) (500 vs. 1250mL, p = 0.02), shorter Intensive Care Unit stay (2 vs. 4 days, p = 0.03) and decrease of global Length Of Stay (LOS) (7 vs. 10 days, p < 0.01). Operative Time (OT) was significantly longer in the robotic group (350.5 vs. 208 min, p < 0.01). No difference were observed between the two approaches regarding complications and oncological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Robotic approach induced lower bleeding and shorter LOS but required longer OT. This technique is feasible and safe for selected cases and experimented surgical team. Complications rate and oncological outcomes are not different compared to standard open procedures.
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
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica publishes scientific papers on nephrology and urology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of Minerva opinion editorials, editorial comments, original articles, video illustrated articles, review articles and letters to the Editor.
期刊最新文献
Real-life data on long-term follow-up of patients successfully treated with percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS). Identifying tumor-related risk factors for simultaneous adrenalectomy in patients with cT1 - cT2 kidney cancer during robotic assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. A systematic review of nerve-sparing surgery for high-risk prostate cancer. Comparison of outcomes between laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors (RENAL score ≥ 7 or maximum tumor size > 4cm): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Totally intracorporeal robotic ileal ureter replacement: focus on surgical technique and outcomes.
×
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