机器人辅助腹腔镜下肾部分切除术两种入路的对比研究

目的:比较经腹膜后和经腹腔两种手术入路机器人辅助腹腔镜下肾部分切除术的临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析2018年6月-2021年1月于甘肃省人民医院行肾部分切除术患者67例的临床资料,根据手术入路不同将患者分为经腹腔组和经腹膜后组。经腹腔入路组患者共26例(男11例,女15例),平均年龄为(53.5±9.7)岁;经腹膜后入路组患者共41例(男20例,女21例),平均年龄为(55.2±12.5)岁。比较两组患者的手术疗效、病理结果和围手术期情况。结果:67例患者的机器人辅助腹腔镜下肾部分切除术均顺利完成,无中转开腹手术。经腹腔入路和经腹膜后入路组术中出血量、热缺血时间、手术时间、术后并发症发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。而经腹膜后入路组患者的术后肠道功能较经腹腔入路组恢复快(P<0.05)。结论:采用经腹膜后入路在机器人辅助腹腔镜下肾部分切除术中可以取得和经腹腔入路同样的手术效果,而且其在术后肠道功能恢复方面具有优势。     

腹腔镜上尿路手术经腹腔途径更有优势

自从CLAYMAN[1]开展第一例经腹腹腔镜肾根治性切除术以来,腹腔镜手术在泌尿外科领域取得了飞速发展。通常,腹腔镜上尿路手术有经腹腔和经腹膜后腔两种手术入路,对两种入路优劣的探讨多存在于肾根治性切除术领域[2],另外在肾部分切除术、肾盂成形术、肾输尿管全长切除术等领域亦存在争论。欧美国家医师选择经腹腔途径手术占多数,而我国医师多习惯于经腹膜后入路,经腹腔途径开展相对较少。经我中心临床实践并参考国外先进经验,本文作者认为经腹腔入路在腹腔镜上尿路手术中存在更多优势,可供我国医师在临床工作中进一步广泛开展。     

机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术不同手术入路的近期疗效分析

目的:探讨机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术手术入路的选择及各自优势。方法:收集2014年9月～2018年10月在我院行机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除术的患者资料,回顾性分析并比较3种手术入路对手术时间、肾动脉阻断时间、出血量及并发症等方面的影响。患者345例,男181例,女164例;其中经腹入路102例,经腰入路121例,经腰腹联合入路122例,手术均由单一术者完成。结果:345例均成功完成手术。经腹、经腰和腰腹联合入路的手术时间分别为(93.0±12.7)min、(89.0±16.5)min和(71.0±9.7)min,组间比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。3种入路在肾动脉阻断时间、术中出血量、术后并发症发生率方面组间比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后患者的肠道功能恢复时间,经腰、经腰腹联合入路早于经腹入路组(P0.05),但经腰与腰腹联合入路差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。所有患者术后病理学检查标本切缘均为阴性。病理诊断结果肾透明细胞癌312例,乳头状肾细胞癌21例,嫌色细胞癌12例。术后患者随访1～40个月,3组患者在随访期内均无肿瘤复发、远处转移、肿瘤特异性死亡等病例。结论:机器人辅助腹腔镜肾部分切除通过腰腹联合入路在缩短手术和肠道恢复时间具有优势,是一种安全、有效的手术方式。     

经肾周脂肪囊内入路后腹腔镜肾上腺手术初步探讨

目的探讨经肾周脂肪囊内入路后腹腔镜肾上腺手术的安全性和可行性。 方法2015年1月1日至2018年12月30日,临沂市人民医院共收治252例肾上腺肿瘤患者。其中行经腹腔入路腹腔镜肾上腺手术115例(经腹腔组),行经肾周脂肪囊内入路后腹腔镜肾上腺手术137例(经脂肪囊内组)。经肾周脂肪囊内入路后腹腔镜肾上腺手术方法：手术常规建立腹膜后空间,打开肾筋膜后直接经肾脏中上极与肾周脂肪囊之间的无血管层面分离、解剖肾上腺,行肾上腺全切术或部分切除术。分析、比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间等临床资料。 结果经腹腔入路腹腔镜肾上腺手术115例及经肾周脂肪囊内入路后腹腔镜肾上腺手术137例均顺利完成,无一例中转开放手术。经腹腔入路腹腔镜肾上腺手术平均手术时间(52.7±19.7)min,平均术中出血量(33.1±23.2)ml,平均术后住院时间(3.5±0.9)d。经肾周脂肪囊内入路后腹腔镜肾上腺手术平均手术时间(54.4±22.7)min,平均术中出血量(31.8±21.4)ml,平均术后住院时间(2.8±0.4)d。两组比较,手术时间、术中出血量无统计学差异,经肾周脂肪囊内入路后腹腔镜肾上腺手术组术后住院时间缩短,差异有统计学意义。 结论经肾周脂肪囊内入路后腹腔镜肾上腺手术解剖肾上腺操作简便,患者术后康复较快,是安全可行的手术方式。     

经腹入路腹腔镜腹膜后肿瘤切除术安全性初探

目的 探讨经腹入路腹腔镜腹膜后肿瘤（RPT）手术治疗的安全性和有效性。方法 回顾性分析2016年10月至2022年1月收治于内蒙古医科大学附属医院及呼和浩特市第一医院,由同一手术组完成的11例经腹入路腹腔镜腹膜后肿瘤切除术患者临床资料。结果 11例患者均成功实施经腹入路腹腔镜下腹膜后肿瘤切除术,无中转开腹,无围手术期死亡。平均手术时间（202±78）min;中位术中出血量100 mL(20,100)mL;平均术后住院时间（6.9±2.4）d。术后病理：纤维瘤3例,淋巴管囊肿2例,淋巴结增生（Castleman）1例,良性间皮瘤1例,淋巴结核1例,黏液性囊腺瘤1例,高级别脂肪肉瘤1例和平滑肌肉瘤1例。随访4～60个月,除脂肪肉瘤复发外,余无复发。结论 病例选择合适,由腹腔镜经验丰富医师主刀,经腹入路实施腹腔镜腹膜后肿瘤切除术安全且疗效显著,尤其在术中操作及术后恢复方面优势明显。     

经腹入路与后腹腔入路腹腔镜超声辅助的肾部分切除术治疗中央型肾癌的临床比较

目的:探讨经腹入路与后腹腔入路行腹腔镜超声辅助肾部分切除术治疗中央型肾癌的手术效果。方法:2012年1月至2015年3月中央型肾癌患者分别经腹入路(经腹组)与经后腹腔入路(后腹腔组)行腹腔镜超声辅助的肾部分切除术,每组15例,分析两组患者的临床资料,评价两种入路的手术时间、肾动脉阻断时间、术中失血量、标本重量、切除肿瘤大小、恢复进食时间、住院时间等指标。结果:两组手术均获成功。两组患者肿瘤大小、术中失血量、标本重量、肾动脉阻断时间等差异无统计学意义(P0.05),后腹腔组腹腔镜手术时间、超声使用时间、恢复进食时间、住院时间均少于腹腔组(P0.05或P0.01)。结论:后腹腔入路与经腹入路行腹腔镜超声辅助肾部分切除术治疗中央型肾癌效果均较好,但后腹腔入路在手术时间、腹腔镜超声使用时间、术后康复方面具有优势。     

腹腔镜经腹入路和经腹膜外入路在肾下极水平以上原发性腹膜后肿瘤切除术中的应用

目的探讨腹腔镜经腹入路和经腹膜外入路在肾下极水平以上原发性腹膜后肿瘤切除术中的应用。方法回顾性分析2013年1月～2018年10月我科腹腔镜手术治疗69例肾下极水平以上原发性腹膜后肿瘤的临床资料,其中35例经腹入路,34例经腹膜外入路,对比2种入路术中、术后情况。结果联合脏器切除1例,为高分化脂肪肉瘤经腹膜外入路联合左肾上腺切除。2例因与周围器官及腹主动脉关系密切,中转开腹。经腹入路组手术时间(145. 2±71. 8) min,与经腹膜外入路组(116. 0±74. 7) min差异无显著性(t=1. 659,P=0. 102)。经腹入路组术中出血量中位数100(10,200) ml,经腹膜外入路组10(5,62. 5) ml,差异有统计学意义(Z=-2. 454,P=0. 014)。经腹膜外入路组术后排气时间(1. 8±0. 6) d,明显短于经腹入路组(2. 3±0. 9) d(t=2. 686,P=0. 009);术后住院时间(4. 3±1. 5) d,明显短于经腹入路组(5. 3±2. 6) d(t=2. 017,P=0. 049)。术后乳糜漏1例,经保守治疗后治愈。85例随访2～72个月(中位数36. 5月),未见肿瘤复发。结论腹腔镜经腹入路和经腹膜外入路应用于肾下极水平以上原发性腹膜后肿瘤切除术是安全有效的。     

经口入路机器人辅助下口咽癌切除术的手术配合

目的:总结26例口咽癌患者采用经口入路达芬奇机器人辅助下口咽癌切除手术的护理配合与经验。方法:回顾性分析2017年6月—2020年12月在本院行口咽癌手术的26例患者的临床资料,采用经口机器人辅助手术(Transoral Robot-assisted Surgery,TORS)治疗口咽癌的护理配合流程,包括机器人器械物品准备、手术室布局、体位安置及护理配合。结果:26例口咽癌患者均采用TORS顺利完成手术治疗。手术创伤小、术中出血量少,未出现护理并发症。结论:手术护士完善术前准备,充分了解手术方式及患者体位安置要点,熟练掌握达芬奇机器人的操作和排除故障方法,是经口机器人辅助口咽癌手术顺利完成的关键;精准、高效的护理配合可缩短手术时间,保证口咽癌患者的手术安全,提高其生存质量。     

经口入路机器人辅助下口咽癌切除术的手术配合

目的：总结26例口咽癌患者采用经口入路达芬奇机器人辅助下口咽癌切除手术的护理配合与经验。方法：回顾性分析2017年6月—2020年12月在本院行口咽癌手术的26例患者的临床资料,采用经口机器人辅助手术（Transoral Robot-assisted Surgery,TORS）治疗口咽癌的护理配合流程,包括机器人器械物品准备、手术室布局、体位安置及护理配合。结果：26例口咽癌患者均采用TORS顺利完成手术治疗。手术创伤小、术中出血量少,未出现护理并发症。结论：手术护士完善术前准备,充分了解手术方式及患者体位安置要点,熟练掌握达芬奇机器人的操作和排除故障方法,是经口机器人辅助口咽癌手术顺利完成的关键;精准、高效的护理配合可缩短手术时间,保证口咽癌患者的手术安全,提高其生存质量。     

后腹腔入路与经腹入路腹腔镜下肾部分切除术治疗肾癌的临床比较

目的:评价后腹腔入路与经腹入路腹腔镜下肾部分切除术治疗早期肾癌的临床效果。方法:回顾性分析后腹腔入路(17例,A组)与经腹入路(15例,B组)腹腔镜下肾部分切除术治疗早期肾癌患者的临床资料,A组肿瘤大小1.2～3.9(2.6±1.3)cm,B组肿瘤大小1.0～4.0(2.7±1.3)cm。两组术前临床分期均为T_1N_0M_0。比较两种方法的肿瘤大小、手术时间、术中失血量、热缺血时间、标本重量、恢复进食时间、住院时间及手术效果。结果:A组手术均成功,B组1例因肾动脉损伤出血中转开放手术。两组肿瘤大小(2.6±1.3 cm vs 2.7±1.3cm)、术中失血量(302±85mlvs305±90ml)、标本重量(42±31g vs 45±33 g)、热缺血时间(28±9.1 min vs30±9.2min)等方面无明显差异(P0.05);A组在手术时间(175±55 min vs 248±70 min)、恢复进食时间(24±5 h vs 49±11 h)和住院时间(6.5±1.6天vs 8.4±1.9天)均少于B组(P0.05)。结论:后腹腔入路与经腹入路腹腔镜下肾部分切除术均是治疗早期肾癌的一种微创和安全有效的治疗方法,后腹腔入路在手术时间、恢复进食时间及住院时间上少于经腹入路。     

经腹入路和腹膜后入路腹腔镜下肾部分切除术疗效比较

目的 比较经腹腹腔镜肾部分切除术与腹膜后腹腔镜下肾部分切除术的疗效.方法 回顾性分析2013年9月至2014年9月施行的63例行腹腔镜下肾部分切除术患者,其中33例行经腹腹腔镜手术,30例行腹膜后腹腔镜手术.应用采用t检验或x2检验对两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术中阻断时间、血肌酐变化、术后并发症发生率、术后拔管时间、术后住院时间、术后拆线时间等进行分析比较.结果 腹腔镜组与开发组相比,术中出血量[(31.82±14.71)和(27±12.52)mL,P＞0.05]、术中阻断时间[(26.09 ±6.83)和(31.40±2.32)min,P＞0.05]、术后并发症发生率[(8.57％)和(16.67％),P＞0.05]、术后血肌酐变化值[(14.55±4.14)和(9.06±2.86) μmol/L,P＞0.05]、术后恢复饮食时间[(3.0±0.45)和(2.4±0.52)d,P＞0.05]、术后住院天数[(5.27±1.42)和(4.9±1.73)d,P＞0.05]差异均无统计学意义;而手术时间[(89.91±24.46)和(114.4 ±31.54) min,P＜0.05]经腹组小于经腰手术组,术后拔管时间[(7.33±2.06)和(12.18 ±2.71)d,P＜0.05]经腰组小于经腹手术组.结论 与经腰手术相比,经腹腹腔镜手术组可以获得相同的疗效,并且能够一定程度降低手术时间,是一种安全有效的手术方式.     

经腹腔与腹膜后腹腔镜肾癌根治术疗效比较

目的比较经腹腔与经腹膜后入路腹腔镜肾癌根治术的临床效果。方法分析2010年4月至2012年2月间在北京大学第一医院接受腹腔镜肾癌根治术的141例患者资料,其中经腹腔入路组61例、经腹膜后腔入路组80例,比较两种手术入路患者在手术时间、出血量、术后住院日等方面的差异。结果所有141例手术均在腹腔镜下完成。对于经腹腔入路组和经腹膜后腔组,平均手术时间分别为192.1及147.2min（P=0.000）;平均术后住院日分别为5.8d及7.2d（P=0.000）;平均肿瘤长径分别为5.6cm及4.3cm（P=0.001）。在术中出血量、并发症及输血情况等方面无显著性差异。结论经腹腹腔镜和经后腹膜腹腔镜肾癌根治术围手术期均有良好效果,经腹腔入路适合治疗体积较大的肿瘤,术后恢复快,而经腹膜后腔入路具有手术时间短的优势。     

机器人辅助后腹腔镜肾部分切除术的手术配合

目的探讨机器人辅助后腹腔镜肾部分切除术的护理配合流程。 方法对解放军总医院泌尿外科2014年12月至2015年12月的117例机器人辅助后腹腔镜肾部分切除术的护理配合进行分析,通过术前访视评估、器械及物品的充分准备、合理的手术间布局、术中精准化配合及术后护理及访视,使患者顺利度过围手术期。 结果117例患者顺利完成,医护配合效果满意,短期随访无术后并发症发生。 结论充分的术前准备,合理的手术间布局,熟练的术中配合能提高术者手术效率,手术顺利完成的重要环节。     

A prospective study of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for T1 tumors--is transperitoneal, retroperitoneal or hand assisted the best approach?

PURPOSE: We designed a prospective, randomized clinical trial to compare 3 common approaches to laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, namely transperitoneal, retroperitoneal and hand assisted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 33 patients with a solid renal mass of 7 cm or less were prospectively enrolled in alternating fashion to a hand assisted procedure, a transperitoneal procedure with morcellation and a retroperitoneal procedure with intact specimen extraction. A single surgeon performed all operations. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative criteria were compared among the 3 techniques. RESULTS: A total of 11 patients underwent each type of procedure. There was no significant difference in age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, body mass index or tumor size among the groups. Mean operative time was significantly lower using the hand assisted approach, whereas estimated blood loss was similar in all 3 groups. Incision size, hospital stay and time to normal daily activity were less using the transperitoneal approach. While not significant, there was a trend toward less narcotic use in the transperitoneal group. Hernia formation was seen with increased frequency in the hand assisted group. CONCLUSIONS: In our series the hand assisted approach had significantly shorter operative time than the transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach but it had the greatest risk of hernia formation. The transperitoneal approach was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay and the earliest resumption of normal activity.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: comparison of the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches

Transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches have been introduced to perform hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. The efficacy and convalescence of both approaches were compared. Of 26 patients with renal cell carcinoma, 14 patients were treated by the transperitoneal approach and 12 by the retroperitoneal approach at the same institution. The mean operative time by transperitoneal approach was significantly shorter than retroperitoneal approach (236.4 and 280.0 minutes, respectively, P < 0.05), but there is a steeper learning in retroperitoneal approach. A significant increase in operative time was required with an increase in specimen weight (r = 0.591, P < 0.05). There were no differences in patient demographic, operative, and convalescence data between the both groups. Hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy is safe by either the transperitoneal or the retroperitoneal approach. Making enough retroperitoneal space for the hand and instrument enables us to use the retroperitoneal approach readily. Patients with abundant fatty tissues around the kidney should be treated by the transperitoneal approach.     

经腹腔与腹膜后行腹腔镜肾癌根治术的比较

目的:比较经腹腔和腹膜后方式行腹腔镜肾癌根治术的优缺点。方法:随机将60例肾癌患者分别经腹腔或腹膜后方式行腹腔镜下肾癌根治术,比较两组术中、术后的情况。结果:与经腹腔方式比较,腹膜后方式处理肾动脉平均时间、处理肾静脉平均时间、总的手术平均时间较短。但经腹膜和腹膜后方式在估计出血量、术后住院时间、术中并发症和术后并发症发生率上无明显差异。结论:腹腔镜下经腹腔或腹膜后方式行肾癌根治术均有效,但后者在处理肾门和总的手术时间方面更快。     

Comparison of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach in laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a single-center experience of 63 cases

BACKGROUND: We report our experience with the retroperitoneal (RP) and transperitoneal (TP) approaches for laparoscopic nephrectomy for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: Sixty-three patients with renal cell carcinoma were treated with laparoscopic nephrectomy, 34 by TP and 29 by RP approach between June 1999 and June 2003. Average age, ASA score, tumor stage and tumor size were similar in both groups. Early complications within 30 days and surgical time were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Surgical time was with a mean of 183 and 190 minutes equal for the TP and RP approach. Intraoperative complications occurred in 4 patients and were vascular, requiring blood transfusion in 2 patients each per group. Postoperative complications were thromboembolism in 1 patient and subcutaneous seroma in 1 patient, both in the TP group. CONCLUSIONS: Although the sample size is small, it appears that the tumor control and surgical time in laparoscopic nephrectomy are not significantly influenced by the approach.     

Robot‐assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: A propensity score‐matched comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and preserved renal parenchymal volume

Objectives

To compare surgical outcomes, including renal function and the preserved renal parenchymal volume, between robot‐assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using propensity score‐matched analyses.

Methods

In total, 253 patients, with a normal contralateral kidney, who underwent laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (n = 131) or robot‐assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (n = 122) with renal arterial clamping between 2010 and 2015, were included. Patients’ background and tumor factors were adjusted by propensity score matching. Surgical outcomes, including postoperative renal function, complications, warm ischemia time and preserved renal parenchymal volume, evaluated by volumetric analysis, were compared between the surgical procedures.

Results

After matching, 64 patients were assigned to each group. The mean age was 56–57 years, and the mean tumor size was 22 mm. Approximately 50% of patients had low complexity tumors (RENAL nephrometry score 4–7). The incidence rate of acute kidney failure was significantly lower in the robot‐assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (11%) than laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (23%) group (P = 0.049), and warm ischemia time shorter in the robot‐assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (17 min) than laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (25 min) group (P < 0.0001). The preservation rate of renal function, measured by the estimated glomerular filtration rate, at 6 months post‐surgery was 96% for robot‐assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and 90% for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (P < 0.0001). The preserved renal parenchymal volume was higher for robot‐assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (89%) than laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (77%; P < 0.0001). The rate of perioperative complications, surgical margin status and length of hospital stay were equivalent for both techniques.

Conclusions

Robot‐assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy allows to achieve better preservation of renal function and parenchymal volume than laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.