Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Cell Carcinoma: Single-Surgeon Analysis of >100 Consecutive Procedures
Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Cell Carcinoma: Single-Surgeon Analysis of >100 Consecutive Procedures
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.urology.2008.09.049
复制
发表时间：
2009-02-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Bhayani, Sam B.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wang, Agnes J.;Bhayani, Sam B.
比较102名连续患者的腹腔镜部分肾切除术（LPN）和机器人辅助的部分肾切除术（RPN）的单室经验的目的。对）进行了审查。结果在两组之间没有发现统计学上的显着差异年龄，体重指数或美国麻醉师学会得分。在估计失血（136 vs 173毫升），肿瘤大小（2.5 vs 2.4 cm）之间，对骨流层修复的需求（两者的56％）与RPN和RPN的正缘率（I VS I）之间没有显着差异。 LPN分别。机器人组中的套筒的平均总数大于腹腔镜组（4.6 vs 3.2，p = .01）。平均总手术时间（140 vs 156分钟，p = .04），温暖的缺血时间（19 vs 25分钟，p = .03）和住院时间（2.5 vs 2.9天，p = .03）明显较短对于RPN而言，分别大于LPN。结论RPN可以产生与LPN相当的结果，但具有缺点，例如成本和助理对肾脏Hilum的控制。需要其他随机试验。泌尿科73：306-310，2009。（c）2009年由Elsevier Inc.出版。
OBJECTIVES To compare a single-surgeon experience of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) in 102 consecutive patients.METHODS The clinical, pathologic, and follow-up information from 102 consecutive procedures (40 RPNs and 62 LPNs) was reviewed.RESULTS No statistically significant differences were found between the groups with regard to age, body mass index, or American Society of Anesthesiologists score. No significant difference was found between the estimated blood loss (136 vs 173 mL), tumor size (2.5 vs 2.4 cm), need for pelvicaliceal repair (56% for both), and positive margin rate (I vs I patient) between RPN and LPN, respectively. The mean total number of trocars in the robotic group was greater than the laparoscopic group (4.6 vs 3.2, P = .01). The mean total operative time (140 vs 156 minutes, P = .04), warm ischemia time (19 vs 25 minutes, P = .03), and length of stay (2.5 vs 2.9 days, P = .03) were significantly shorter for RPN than for LPN, respectively.CONCLUSIONS RPN can produce results comparable to LPN but has disadvantages, such as cost and assistant control of the renal hilum. Additional randomized trials are needed. UROLOGY 73: 306-310, 2009. (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc.