4.5 Article

Robotic Assistance in Right Hemicolectomy: Is There a Role?

期刊

DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM
卷 53, 期 7, 页码 1000-1006

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181d32096

关键词

Cost analysis; da Vinci robot; Laparoscopic surgery; Right hemicolectomy; Robot-assisted surgery; Robotic surgery

资金

  1. Intuitive Surgical, honorarium, consultant
  2. Ethicon, honorarium, consultant, fellowship
  3. Covidien, honorarium, fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results, postoperative outcomes, and cost of robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy and determine its safety, feasibility, and efficacy as compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach. METHODS: From August 2005 to February 2009, 40 robot-assisted right hemicolectomies were performed by the authors at a single institution. These were compared with 135 laparoscopic right hemicolectomies performed by the authors, at the same hospital and during the same time period. Cost data from July 2006 until the end of the study period were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists' class, history of prior abdominal surgery, and diagnosis. There was no significant difference in the lymph node harvest, estimated blood loss, conversion rate, length of stay, or incidence of complications and wound infection between the 2 groups. A robotic procedure was associated with a longer operative time (P < .001) and a higher cost (P = .003). CONCLUSION: Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy is safe and feasible but is associated with a longer operative time and, at present, with a higher cost compared with laparoscopy. However, right hemicolectomy serves as an ideal procedure to begin the learning curve in robotic colorectal surgery, which can subsequently progress to robotic rectal resections where the robot has the greatest potential for benefit.

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

4.5
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