The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2018
Robotic left colectomy with complete mesocolectomy for splenic flexure and descending colon cancer, compared with a laparoscopic procedure.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Jin Cheon, Lee Jong Lyul, Yoon Yong Sik, Kim Chan Wook, Park In Ja, Lim Seok-Byeong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Its relatively low incidence and its surgical complexity mean that a standardized technique for left colectomy has not yet been established for splenic flexure and descending colon cancer (SF-DCC).
METHODS: Seventy-three patients (robot-assisted left colectomy with complete mesocolectomy [R-LCCM], n = 20; laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolectomy [L-LCCM], n = 53) with SF-DCC were enrolled at the Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea).
RESULTS: R-LCCM conveniently enables dexterous dissection for the multi-directional approaches during left mesocolic mobilization. A conversion to open surgery was required in two patients of the L-LCCM group, but not in the R-LCCM group. A positive circumferential resection margin was exclusively identified in two patients in the L-LCCM group. Mean lymph node harvest was 21 with no difference between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Although R-LCCM provided few remarkable advantages over L-LCCM, it could be considered as an efficient approach in patients with SF-DCC.
METHODS: Seventy-three patients (robot-assisted left colectomy with complete mesocolectomy [R-LCCM], n = 20; laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolectomy [L-LCCM], n = 53) with SF-DCC were enrolled at the Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea).
RESULTS: R-LCCM conveniently enables dexterous dissection for the multi-directional approaches during left mesocolic mobilization. A conversion to open surgery was required in two patients of the L-LCCM group, but not in the R-LCCM group. A positive circumferential resection margin was exclusively identified in two patients in the L-LCCM group. Mean lymph node harvest was 21 with no difference between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Although R-LCCM provided few remarkable advantages over L-LCCM, it could be considered as an efficient approach in patients with SF-DCC.