JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons · 2025
Perioperative and Patient-Reported Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Wadhawan Randeep, Galhotra Anmol, Veetil Deepa Kizhakke, Bhardwaj Arun, Verma Naveen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of clinical evidence from India that compare robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).
METHODS: This prospective, single-center study compares the short-term perioperative outcomes of RAC against LC. Consecutive patients who were 18 years or older, provided informed consent, and were found to be eligible for multiport RAC or multiport LC were included in the study.
RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were enrolled in this study (n = 80, LC group; n = 40, RAC group). The most common preoperative indication was symptomatic cholelithiasis (80% in the LC group and 52.5% in the RAC group). The mean length of hospital stay was comparable for the RAC and LC groups (1.08 ± 0.26 vs 1.13 ± 0.33 days, P = .406). The mean operative time was also similar between the groups (38.06 ± 9.23 minutes in the LC group vs 40 ± 9.78 minutes in the RAC group, P = .290). Within each group, there were no conversions, intraoperative complications, bile duct injuries, surgical site infections, or mortality at day 30 postsurgery. There was just one postoperative complication in the study population (in the LC group). On postoperative days 4 and 7, the RAC group reported significantly lower pain than the LC group (P = .0000 and P = .0122, respectively). In addition, the RAC group returned to work faster than the LC group (P = .0000).
CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that RAC and LC have comparable perioperative outcomes. There are advantages to the RAC approach in terms of postoperative pain and resumption of work.
METHODS: This prospective, single-center study compares the short-term perioperative outcomes of RAC against LC. Consecutive patients who were 18 years or older, provided informed consent, and were found to be eligible for multiport RAC or multiport LC were included in the study.
RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were enrolled in this study (n = 80, LC group; n = 40, RAC group). The most common preoperative indication was symptomatic cholelithiasis (80% in the LC group and 52.5% in the RAC group). The mean length of hospital stay was comparable for the RAC and LC groups (1.08 ± 0.26 vs 1.13 ± 0.33 days, P = .406). The mean operative time was also similar between the groups (38.06 ± 9.23 minutes in the LC group vs 40 ± 9.78 minutes in the RAC group, P = .290). Within each group, there were no conversions, intraoperative complications, bile duct injuries, surgical site infections, or mortality at day 30 postsurgery. There was just one postoperative complication in the study population (in the LC group). On postoperative days 4 and 7, the RAC group reported significantly lower pain than the LC group (P = .0000 and P = .0122, respectively). In addition, the RAC group returned to work faster than the LC group (P = .0000).
CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that RAC and LC have comparable perioperative outcomes. There are advantages to the RAC approach in terms of postoperative pain and resumption of work.