论文部分内容阅读
目的比较机器人辅助腹腔镜子宫全切术与腹腔镜子宫全切术用于良性疾病患者的手术结果。方法通过回顾病历审查机器人(41例)和与之匹配的腹腔镜(100例)患者行子宫全切术的手术结果,统计方法采用Fisher确切概率法及卡方检验。两组年龄(P=0.65)、体重指数(P=032)、妊娠次数(P=0.21)、既往盆腹腔手术(P=0.25)以及子宫大小(P=0.65)均相匹配。观察数据包括手术时间、术中出血量、并发症、术后住院时间。结果机器人组与腹腔镜组平均手术时间(82.51min、80.98min),平均出血量(55.05ml、73.25ml),术中并发症(0例、0例)术后并发症(2例、3例),住院天数超过2d(0例、0例),再住院及症状两组之间无显着差异。两组无1例转开腹手术。结论机器人组与腹腔镜组子宫全切术短期结果相似,长期结果并没有评估。机器人技术被成功地用于子宫切除术与腹腔镜组有相似的手术结果。
Objective To compare the results of robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic hysterectomy for patients with benign diseases. Methods The surgical results of hysterectomy were reviewed by reviewing medical records reviewing robot (41 cases) and matching laparoscopic (100 cases) patients. Statistical methods were Fisher exact test and Chi-square test. The age (P = 0.65), body mass index (P = 032), number of pregnancies (P = 0.21), previous pelvis and abdominal surgery (P = 0.25) and uterine size (P = 0.65) were matched. Observational data including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, postoperative hospital stay. Results The mean operation time (82.51min, 80.98min), average bleeding amount (55.05ml, 73.25ml) and postoperative complication (0 cases, 0 cases) in the robot group and the laparoscopic group were significantly higher than those in the laparoscopic group (2 cases, 3 cases ), Hospital stay more than 2d (0 cases, 0 cases), there was no significant difference between the two groups. None of the two patients switched to open surgery. Conclusion Short-term results of hysterectomy in robotic group and laparoscopic group were similar, but the long-term results were not evaluated. Robotics were successfully used in hysterectomy and laparoscopic surgery group had similar surgical results.