目的 总结达芬奇机器人手术系统在胸外科的应用体验。 方法 回顾性分析 2016 年 1～11 月我院胸外科行肺叶切除和纵隔肿瘤切除 33 例患者的临床资料，其中男 24 例、女 9 例，年龄 51.3（22～76）岁。肺叶切除 18 例，肺楔形切除+肺段切除 11 例，纵隔肿瘤切除 4 例。分别对患者手术时间、淋巴结清扫数、中转开胸数、严重并发症（包括特发性急性肺损伤、呼吸衰竭、支气管胸膜瘘）、术中死亡人数等指标进行数据处理分析。 结果 33 例患者肺叶切除 18 例，术后病理证实为恶性肿瘤 9 例，肺结核 5 例，支气管扩张症 4 例；肺楔形切除+肺段切除 11 例，术后病理证实为结核球 8 例，良性结节 3 例。肺部疾病手术时间 90～210（130.7±50.6）min，淋巴结清扫 6～28（18.0±12.2）枚，纵隔肿瘤手术时间 60～90（78.3±32.9）min。所有患者均顺利完成手术，无严重并发症（特发性急性肺损伤、呼吸衰竭、支气管胸膜瘘），无中转开胸。 结论 达芬奇 Si 系统使微创技术有了新的生命力，为微创手术技术的进一步发展提供了可能。
Objective To summarize the clinical data about mediastinal lesions, then to analyze the treatment effect of da Vinci robot system in the surgical treatment of mediastinal lesions. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 49 patients with mediastinal lesions in our hospital between January 2016 and October 2017. These patients were divided into two groups including a da Vinci robot group and a video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) group according to the selection of the treatments. There were 25 patients with 14 males and 11 females at age of 56.5±17.9 years in the da Vinci group and 24 patient with 15 males and 11 females at age of 53.0±17.8 years in the VATS group. Results There was no statistical difference in surgery time between the two groups (t=–0.365, P=0.681). Less intraoperative blood loss (t=–2.569, P<0.001), less postoperative drainage amount within three days after surgery (t=–6.325, P=0.045), shorter period of bearing drainage tubes after surgery (t=–1.687, P=0.024), shorter hospital stays (t=–3.689, P=0.021), lower visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of postoperative 48 hours (t=–7.214, P=0.014) with a statistical difference in the da Vinci robot group compared with the VATS group. Conclusion The da Vinci robot system is safe and efficient in the treatment of mediastinal lesions compared with video-assisted thoracoscopic approach.
ObjectiveTo collect the data of esophageal foreign body patients, and to evaluate the clinical effects of two different surgical methods in our hospital.MethodsThe clinical data of 294 patients who were treated in Gansu Provincal Hospital from January 2012 to June 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. The clinical data were collected and analyzed by SPSS 22.0. In order to to evaluate the efficacy of flexible esophagoscope (FE) and rigid esophagoscope (RE) in the treatment of esophageal foreign bodies.The patients were divided into two groups: a RE group including 118 patients with 62 males and 56 females at age of 6 (3-37) years and a FE group including 176 patients with 84 males and 92 females at age of 6 (3-59) years.ResultsThere was no significant difference in age, age stratification, gender and foreign body type between the two groups. There was a statistical difference in the initial clinical symptoms (P=0.041) or in esophageal foreign bodies position (P=0.037) between the two groups. The success rate of foreign body removal was similar between the two groups (P=0.632). The success rate was 88.9% (105/118) in the RE group, 87.5% (154/176) in the FE group. The operation time was significantly longer in the RE group than that in the FE group (10.8 ±17.4 min vs. 17.5±21.6 min, P<0.001). The postoperative hospitalization time in the RE groups was longer than that in the FE group (21.5 ±24.2 hours vs. 12.5 ±21.3 hours, P<0.05). There was a statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups (P=0.034). In the RE group, the main complication was mucosal edema (15.3%). And the rate of bleeding was higher (15.9%) in the FE group. There were 30 patients (25.5%) in the RE group with minor postoperative complications versus the FE group with 40 patients (22.7%); and 1 patient (0.8%) in the RE group with severe complications versus the FE group with 5 paients (2.8%).ConclusionBased on the analysis of this study, it is found that RE has higher safety. But the indications are strict, the professional requirements of the operator and the selection of patients are stronger. The FE is convenient to use, the operation crowd is wide, and the suitable crowd is wide. Therefore, for specific patients, after improving the relevant examination and preoperative evaluation of patients, clinicians need to choose appropriate surgical methods to ensure the success of the operation, and reduce the postoperative complications as far as possible.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility and safety of da Vinci robotic surgery for elderly patients with radical surgery of lung cancer.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 59 patients aged over 70 years who underwent radical surgery of lung cancer in our hospital between 2016 and 2019. These patients were divided into two groups including a da Vinci robot group and a single-utility port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) group according to the patients’ selection of the treatments. There were 32 patients with 20 males and 12 females aged 73.1±2.3 years in the da Vinci robot group and 27 patients with 16 males and 11 females aged 71.2±1.3 years in the VATS group. The clinical data of the two groups were compared.ResultsThere was no statistical difference in surgery time between the two groups (t=–0.341, P=0.484). Compared with the VATS group, the da Vinci robot group had more number of lymph nodes dissected (t=1.635, P=0.015), less intraoperative blood loss (t=–2.569, P <0.001), less postoperative drainage amount within 3 days after surgery (t=–6.325, P=0.045), lower visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at postoperative 3rd day (t=–7.214, P=0.021).ConclusionThe da Vinci robot system is safe and efficient in the treatment for elderly patients with radical surgery of lung cancer with less trauma.
Objective To compare the short-term efficacy and safety of inflatable video-assisted mediastinoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy (IVMTE) and minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy (MITE) in the treatment of esophageal cancer. MethodsThe Cochrane Library, EMbase, PubMed, Wanfang Database, VIP, and CNKI were searched. Literatures related to the short-term efficacy and safety of IVMTE and MITE in the treatment of esophageal neoplasms published from the establishment of the database to December 2023 were searched and meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan5.4. Quality of case control study or cohort study was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and quality of randomized controlled trial was assessed by Cochrane Handbook. Results A total of 14 studies (12 case control studies and 1 prospective cohort study wiht NOS score more than 7 points and 1 randomized controlled trial wiht low bias risk) were included, comprising 1 163 patients, with 525 in the IVMTE group and 638 in the MITE group. The results of meta-analysis revealed that the IVMTE group exhibited significantly shorter operative time [MD=−60.42, 95%CI (−83.78, −37.07), P<0.001] and postoperative hospital stay [MD=−2.44, 95%CI (−2.93, −1.94), P<0.01] compared to the MITE group. Moreover, intraoperative blood loss [MD=−34.67, 95%CI (−59.11, −10.23), P=0.005], three-day postoperative drainage [MD=−286.66, 95%CI (−469.93, −103.40), P=0.002], incidence of postoperative pulmonary infection [OR=0.38, 95%CI (0.26, 0.56), P<0.001], lung leakage rate [OR=0.12, 95% CI (0.02, 0.63), P=0.01] and overall complication rate [MD=0.41, 95%CI (0.22, 0.75), P=0.004] were all lower in the IVMTE group compared to those in the MITE group. However, the MITE technique demonstrated superiority over IVMTE regarding intraoperative lymph dissection number [MD=−3.52, 95%CI (−6.36, –0.68), P=0.02] and intraoperative recurrent laryngeal nerve injury [OR=1.78, 95%CI (1.22, 2.60), P=0.003]. No significant difference was observed between both methods concerning anastomotic fistula. Conclusion Compared to MITE, IVMTE has advantages such as shorter operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stay, less postoperative drainage within 3 days, and a lower incidence of pulmonary complications. In terms of laryngeal recurrent nerve injury and lymphatic dissection, MITE operation offers more benefits.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and video assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 9, 2016), Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM databases to collect clinical studies about RATS vs. VATS for patients with NSCLC from inception to October 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 14 cohort studies involving 19 921 patients were included; among them, 4 322 cases were in the RATS group, and 15 599 were in the VATS group. The results of meta-analysis showed that the operation time (MD=22.90, 95%CI 9.97 to 35.84, P<0.000 5) was longer in the RATS group than the VATS group. However, the conversion rate (OR=0.72, 95%CI 0.44 to 1.18, P=0.20), the incidence of postoperative complications (OR=1.06, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.17, P=0.28), intraoperative blood loss (MD=2.75, 95%CI –8.39 to 13.89, P=0.63), postoperative hospitalization time (MD=–0.00, 95%CI –0.02 to 0.02, P=0.99) and in-hospital mortality rate (OR=0.60, 95%CI 0.35 to 1.05, P=0.07) were not significant differences between both groups.ConclusionThe current meta-analysis indicates that the efficacy and safety of RATS and VATS for NSCLC is equivalence, however the operation time for RATS is longer. Due to the limited quantity and quality of inclued studies, the above conclusions still need to be verified by more high quality studies.
At present, the application of the robot assisted surgery system in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer is gradually emerging, and it is more and more widely used and recognized in the field of surgery. According to the domestic and foreign literatures, the robot has many advantages, and robotic assisted esophageal cancer surgery has been proved to be safe and effective, and its short-term efficacy is significantly better than thoracotomy. Other studies have shown that in long-term follow-up, the effect is comparable to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. In this paper, the author are systematically reviewed the development history of the robot assisted surgery system, the effect of robotic assisted esophagectomy on safety, surgical method, short-term efficacy and long-term prognosis. The traditional open surgery and thoracoscopic laparoscopic esophagectomy has been carried on the detailed comparison to provide some advice and theoretical basis for esophageal cancer surgery robot system.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of lung subsegmentectomy and segmentectomy in the treatment of small pulmonary nodules. MethodsComputer searches were conducted on PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, Scopus, Web of Science, SinoMed, Wanfang Data, VIP, and CNKI databases to collect relevant literature on the short-term efficacy and safety of lung subsegmentectomy and segmentectomy for small pulmonary nodules from the inception to April 2024. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the selected literature. ResultsA total of 15 retrospective cohort studies with 2417 patients were included, among which 796 patients underwent lung subsegmentectomy and 1621patients underwent segmentectomy. The NOS scores of the included literature were all≥6 points. Meta-analysis results showed that compared with segmentectomy, lung subsegmentectomy had a lower overall postoperative complication rate [OR=0.54, 95%CI (0.39, 0.75), P<0.01] and fewer lymph nodes dissected [MD=−0.43, 95%CI (−0.81, −0.06), P=0.02]. There was no statistical difference between the two surgical methods in terms of operation time [MD=5.11, 95%CI (−4.02, 14.23), P=0.27], intraoperative blood loss [MD=−14.62, 95%CI (−29.58, 0.34), P=0.06], postoperative hospital stay [MD=−0.24, 95%CI (−0.49, 0.01), P=0.06], postoperative drainage time [MD=−0.14, 95%CI (−0.46, 0.18), P=0.40], intraoperative margin width [MD=0.10, 95%CI (−0.16, 0.35), P=0.46], or recurrence rate [OR=1.57, 95%CI (0.53, 4.61), P=0.42]. Subgroup analysis results showed that when using uniportal video thoracoscopy for surgery, compared with segmentectomy, lung subsegmentectomy had less intraoperative blood loss [MD=−15.57, 95%CI (−28.84, −2.30), P=0.02], shorter postoperative hospital stay [MD=−0.49, 95%CI (−0.63, −0.35), P<0.01], and shorter postoperative drainage time [MD=−0.19, 95%CI (−0.35, −0.03), P=0.02]. ConclusionLung subsegmentectomy can achieve similar efficacy as segmentectomy and has a lower overall postoperative complication rate. In terms of safety, lung subsegmentectomy can achieve a margin range close to that of segmentectomy. When performing uniportal thoracoscopic surgery, lung subsegmentectomy has advantages over segmentectomy in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and drainage time.