摘要
目的对达芬奇机器人手术系统与传统开腹手术在老年上腹部外科疾病中的应用进行对比。方法选择2015年2月至2016年7月在四川省人民医院治疗的老年上腹部外科疾病患者48例,分为机器人组23例和传统开腹组25例,比较两组患者的相关临床指标。结果机器人组麻醉时间和手术时间均较传统开腹组长[(194±16)min比(181±11)min,t=3.262,P:0.002;(167±14)min比(158±14)min,t=2.292,P=0.027],术中失血量少于传统开腹组[(128±62)ml比(190±86)m1.t=-2.886.P=0.006]。机器人组术后24h引流量[(69±27)ml比(114±54)ml,t=-3.680,P=0.001]、下床活动时间[(27.7±8.0)h比(35.7±9.9)h,t=-3.067.P=0.004]、行为疼痛量表评分、术后排气时间[(27.2±5.9)h比(32.8±8.3)h,t=-2.690,P=0.01]、住院时间[(10.4±1.8)d比(11.8±1.9)d,t=-2.600,P=0.013]均较传统开腹组有明显优势。机器人组住院费用较传统开腹组增高[(11.7±1.0)万元比(7.7±0.8)万元,t=15.087,P=0.000]。结论达芬奇机器人手术系统在减轻创伤、减少出血、缓解疼痛、术后快速康复、缩短住院时间方面均比开腹手术更有优势。
Objective To compare the clinical application of Da Vinci robot surgical system (RSS) with traditional open surgery (TOS). Methods From Feb 2015 to Jul 2016,48 cases of upper abdominal surgical disease patients were divided into RSS group (23 cases ) and TOS group (25 patients ) randomly. Results The anesthesia time [ (194 ±16 ) min vs. (181±11)min,t=3.262,P=0.002] and operation time [ ( 167± 14) rain vs. ( 158 ± 14 ) rain, t = 2. 292, P = 0. 027 ] were much longer in the RSS, while the blood loss during operation significantly less than the TOS [ ( 128 ± 62 ) ml vs. ( 190 ± 86 ) ml, t=- 2. 886, P = 0. 006 ]. The RSS has obvious advantages in 24 h-drainage [ ( 69 ± 27 ) ml vs. ( 114 ± 54 ) ml, t = - 3. 680,P = 0. 001 ], time to out-of-bed activity [ ( 27. 7 ± 8. 0) h vs. ( 35.7 ± 9. 9 ) h, t = - 3. 067, P = 0. 004 ], BPS, postoperative exhausting time[ (27.2 ± 5.9) b vs. ( 32. 8 ± 8. 3 ) h, t = - 2. 690, P = 0. 01 ] and length of hospital stay [ ( 10. 4 ± 1.8) d vs. ( 11.8 ± 1.9) d,t = - 2. 600,P = 0. 013 ]. But the total hospital cost was higher in RSS [ ( 117 0013 ±10 000) yuan vs. (77 000 ± 8 000 ) yuan, t = 15. 087, P = 0.000 ) 3. Conclusions The RSS is a much minimally invasive surgery, reducing blood loss and postoperative pain, promoting rapid recovery, shortening hospital stay.
出处
《中华普通外科杂志》
CSCD
北大核心
2017年第7期595-597,共3页
Chinese Journal of General Surgery
关键词
机器人
老年人
外科手术
微创性
Robotics
Aged
Surgical procedures, minimally invasive