Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2017
[Application of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopy in ureteral reimplantation with psoas hitch].
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Li Dong, Wang Bao-Jun, Zhang Xu, Zhang Wei
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of robotic-assisted laparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation with psoas hitch.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 10 patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation with psoas hitch and 6 undergoing conventional laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation between June, 2013 and December, 2014 in the General Hospital of PLA. The indications, surgical techniques and outcomes of the two procedures were compared.
RESULTS: All the patients completed the laparoscopic procedures without conversion to open surgery. Robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures were comparable in terms of the mean operation time (165.50=52.57 vs 152.50=73.60 min), mean volume of blood loss (81.00=69.35 vs 46.67=31.41 mL), mean duration of catheter retention (6.75=1.74 vs 7.50=2.43 days), and mean postoperative hospital stay (7.10=2.08 vs 8.67=3.14 days). The patients were followed up for a mean of 13.5 months, during which none of the patients experienced anastomotic leak, vesicoureteral reflux or hydronephrosis.
CONCLUSION: There are no significant differences in surgical indications, surgical techniques or postoperative effect between robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures of ureteral reimplantation with psoas hitch, but robotic-assisted laparoscopy can reduced the complexity in operation and increase the surgical precision in patients with a history of pelvic surgery, pelvic adhesion or secondary reimplantation.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 10 patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation with psoas hitch and 6 undergoing conventional laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation between June, 2013 and December, 2014 in the General Hospital of PLA. The indications, surgical techniques and outcomes of the two procedures were compared.
RESULTS: All the patients completed the laparoscopic procedures without conversion to open surgery. Robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures were comparable in terms of the mean operation time (165.50=52.57 vs 152.50=73.60 min), mean volume of blood loss (81.00=69.35 vs 46.67=31.41 mL), mean duration of catheter retention (6.75=1.74 vs 7.50=2.43 days), and mean postoperative hospital stay (7.10=2.08 vs 8.67=3.14 days). The patients were followed up for a mean of 13.5 months, during which none of the patients experienced anastomotic leak, vesicoureteral reflux or hydronephrosis.
CONCLUSION: There are no significant differences in surgical indications, surgical techniques or postoperative effect between robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures of ureteral reimplantation with psoas hitch, but robotic-assisted laparoscopy can reduced the complexity in operation and increase the surgical precision in patients with a history of pelvic surgery, pelvic adhesion or secondary reimplantation.