4.7 Article

Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted cholecystectomy: A retrospective cohort study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 12, 期 10, 页码 1077-1081

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.08.405

关键词

Cholecystectomy; Laparoscopy; Robot-assisted surgery; Case series; Safety; Outcomes

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Robot-assisted surgery has permeated all surgical specialties including general surgery. Still, only a few small experimental series have compared experiences between laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and robotic cholecystectomy (RC). We present a single surgeon's experience with LC versus RC in a large case series. Methods: We conducted an IRB-approved retrospective review of 326 patients (147 LC and 179 RC) who underwent surgery between September 2005 and June 2012. The same selection criteria and standardized surgical technique was used for all patients. Demographics collected included patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), operating time, estimated blood loss (EBL), associated procedures, conversions, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results: The LC group (26 males/121 females) had a mean age, BMI, operative time, and EBL of 41.1 years, 31.8 kg/m(2), 89.60 min, and 13.7 ml, respectively. Three cases were converted to open surgery and there were three major complications. The mean LOS was 1.01 days. The RC group (30 males/149 females) had a mean age, BMI, operative time, and EBL of 40.2 years, 32.9 kg/m(2), 95.7 min, and 13.9 ml, respectively. Two cases were converted to open surgery and there were three major complications. The mean LOS was 0.9 days. Conclusions: LC and RC are comparable in terms of feasibility, safety, and reproducibility of outcomes in all cholecystectomy settings. Robotic assistance may be useful in managing biliary injuries during the LC procedure. (C) 2014 Surgical Associates Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据