Comparison of Da Vinci Robot-assisted and Traditional laparoscopic perioperative indicators
MENG Rui1, SUN Bo2, ZOU Lian2
1.Department of Urology,Tsinghua University Yuquan Hosptal,Beijing100049,China; 2.Department of Urology,Rocket Army General Hospital of PLA,Beijing 100088,China
Abstract：Objective To compare the Da Vinci surgical system with traditional laparoscopy in the field of urology.Methods Retrospective analysis was conducted of the clinical data of 40 patients who underwent surgery with Da Vinci robots at the Department of Urology of the Rocket General Hospital between March 2014 and January 2018 and of another 40 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery.Results The intraoperative blood loss volume of the Da Vinci group was (341.35±52.01) ml, which was significantly smaller than that of the laparoscopic group (367.78±50.04) ml. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). The exhaust time of the Da Vinci group was (40.71±8.59) h, and the time of first postoperative ambulation (42.97±11.80) h was also significantly earlier than that of the laparoscopic group. The difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The cost of surgery in the Da Vinci group was higher than that in the laparoscopic group, but the difference was not statistically significant. However, hospital stay was significantly shorter in the Da Vinci group than in the laparoscopic group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).Conclusions Surgery with the Da Vinci robot-assisted system can improve the accuracy of surgery, reduce intraoperative bleeding, promote recovery and shorten hospital stay.
孟锐, 孙博, 邹练. 泌尿外科达芬奇机器人辅助与传统腹腔镜围术期指标比较[J]. 武警医学, 2019, 30(6): 496-498.
MENG Rui, SUN Bo, ZOU Lian. Comparison of Da Vinci Robot-assisted and Traditional laparoscopic perioperative indicators. Med. J. Chin. Peop. Armed Poli. Forc., 2019, 30(6): 496-498.
Chen S,Chen J Z,Zhan Q,et al.Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, matched, mid-term follow-up study[J]. Surg Endosc, 2015, 29(12):3698-3711.
[6]
Senthilnathan P, Gurumurthy S S, Gul S I, et al. Long-term results of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary cancer-experience of 130 cases from a rertiary-care center in south India[J]. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2015,25(4):295-300.
[7]
Song K B , Kim S C , Hwang D W , et al. Matched case-control analysis comparing Laparoscopic and open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with periampullary tumors[J]. Ann Surg, 2015, 262(1):146-155.
[8]
Croome K P, Farnell M B, Que F G, et al. Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic advantages over open approaches?[J]. Ann Surg, 2014, 260(4):633-640.
[9]
Dokmak Sfteriche F S,Aussilhou B.Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy should not be routine for resection of periampullary tumors[J]. J Am Coll Surg,2015, 220(5):831-838.
[10]
Luke P P W, Girvan A R, Omar M, et al. Laparoscopic robotic pyeloplasty using the zeus telesurgical system[J]. Can J Uro, 2004, 11(5):2396-2400.
[11]
Hayashi Y, Mizuno K, Kurokawa S, et al. Extravesical robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation for vesicoureteral reflux: initial experience in Japan with the ureteral advancement technique[J]. Int J Uro, 2014, 21(10):1016-1021.
[12]
Branco A W, Kondo W, Filho A J B, et al. A comparison of hand-assisted and pure laparoscopic techniques in live donor nephrectomy[J]. Clinics, 2008, 63(6):795-800.
[13]
Chen W, Zheng R, Baade P D, et al. Cancer statistics in China 2015[J]. Ca Cancer J Clin, 2016, 66(2):115-132.
[14]
Ploussard G, Alexandre D L, Moulin M , et al. comparisons of the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus pure extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy[J]. Eur Urol, 2014, 65(3):610-619.
2019, Vol. 30 
