切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版)

中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2017, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (02): 93 -96. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6899.2017.02.008

所属专题： 经典病例； 机器人手术； 文献资源库；

论著 上一篇    下一篇

达芬奇机器人系统在宫颈癌根治术中的应用(附40例报告)
刘金钰 1, 张锌 2 , †( ), 高春英 1, 朴金霞 1   
  1. 1. 130012 长春，吉林省肿瘤医院妇科肿瘤一科
    2. 130031 长春，吉林大学中日联谊医院风湿免疫科
  • 收稿日期:2017-01-06 出版日期:2017-04-30
  • 通信作者: 张锌

Clinical application of da Vinci robotic surgery in cervical cancer : with a report of 40 cases

Jinyu Liu 1, Xin Zhang 2 , †( ), Chunying Gao 1, Jinxia Piao 1   

  1. 1. Department One of Gynecologic Oncology, Jilin Province Tumor Hospital, Changchun 130012, China
    2. Department of Rheumatology, China Japan Union Hospital, Jilin University , Changchun 130031, China
  • Received:2017-01-06 Published:2017-04-30
  • Corresponding author: Xin Zhang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Zhang Xin, Email:
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( )
目的

探讨达芬奇机器人手术系统应用于宫颈癌根治术的安全性及有效性。

方法

回顾性分析吉林省肿瘤医院妇科肿瘤一科2015年7月至2016年6月为40例宫颈癌患者行达芬奇机器人宫颈癌根治术(广泛性全子宫切除术＋盆腔淋巴结切除术)的临床资料，观察手术时间、术中出血量、中转开腹、清扫淋巴结数、术后肠蠕动恢复时间、术后住院时间等。

结果

40例患者均顺利完成手术，无一例中转开腹，未发生髂血管及输尿管、膀胱、肠管等盆腔器官损伤，手术时间(240.2 ± 60.3)min，术中出血量(65.6 ± 21.4)ml，清扫淋巴结(23.1 ± 3.9)枚，术后胃肠功能恢复时间(2.6 ± 1.0)d，标本残端均无肿瘤细胞残留，术后住院时间(12.5 ± 2.1)d。

结论

达芬奇机器人技术应用于宫颈癌根治术安全可行、疗效显著。

关键词: 达芬奇机器人手术, 宫颈癌, 宫颈癌根治术
Objective

The purpose of this study was to discuss the safety and feasibiIity of da Vinci robotic surgery-assisted resection of cervical cancer.

Methods

Department of gynecologic oncology, Jilin cancer hospital from Jul. 2015 to Jun. 2016 who underwent da Vinci robotic surgery-assisted resection of cervical cancer was retrospectively analyzed. The operating time, blood loss, number of conversion, number of harvested lymph node, postoperative intestinal peristalsis recovery time, the average hospital stay affer surgery were observed.

Results

All of the patients were operated successfully with no conversion, no iliac blood vessels, ureter, bladder and bowel pelvic organ damage, et al. The average operative time was (240.2 ± 60.3)min.The mean intraoperative blood loss was(65.6 ± 21.4)ml; The mean postoperative gastro intestinal function recovery time was(2.6 ± 1.0)d.All specimens stump were found with non-cancer cell infiliration, number of harvested lymph node was(23.1 ± 3.9). The average hospital stay affer surgery was(12.5 ± 2.1)d.

Conclusion

Da Vinci robotic surgery-assisted resection of cervical cancer is safe, feasible and efective.

Key words: Da Vinci robotic surgery, Cervical cancer, Resection of cervical cancer
1
Shen WS, Xi HQ, Chen L, et al. A meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer[J]. Surgical Endoscopy, 2014, 28(10): 2795-2802.
2
Liao G, Zhao Z, Lin S, et al. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials[J]. World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2014, 12(1): 122.
3
Ishii H, Rai BP, Stolzenburg JU, et al. Robotic or open radical cystectomy, which is safer? a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies[J]. Journal of Endourology, 2014, 28(10): 1215-1223.
4
Cao C, Manganas C, Ang SC, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on pulmonary resections by robotic video-assisted thoracic surgery[J]. Ann Cardiothorac Surg, 2012, 1(1): 3-10.
5
Vizza E, Corrado G, Mancini E, et al. Robotic single-site hysterectomy in low risk endometrial cancer: a pilot study[J]. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2013, 20(8): 2759-2764.
6
Fagotti A, Corrado G, Fanfani F, et al. Robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSS-H) vs. laparoendoscopic single-site hysterectomy (LESS-H) in early endometrial cancer: a double-institution case-control study[J]. Gynecologic Oncology, 2013, 130(1): 219-223.
7
Orady M, Hrynewych A, Nawfal AK, et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted hysterectomy to other minimally invasive approaches[J]. Jsls Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, 2012, 16(16): 542-548.
8
Yong WJ, Sang WK, Kim YT, et al. Recent advances of robotic surgery and single port laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology[J]．J Gynecol Oneol，2009，20(3): 137-144.
9
Ramirez PT, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic techniques for radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer[J]. Gynecologic Oncology, 2008, 110(3): 21-24.
10
Shafer A, Boggess JF. Robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging and radical hysterectomy with the da Vinci surgical system [J]. Gynecologic Oncology, 2008, 111(2): 18-23.
11
Maggioni A, Minig L, Zanagnolo V, et al. Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy: a case control study[J]. Gynecologic Oncology, 2009, 115(1): 60-64.
12
Ko EM, Muto MG, Berkowitz RS, et al. Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution[J]. Gynecologic Oncology, 2008, 111(3): 425-430.
13
Nezhat FR, Datta MS, Liu C, et al. Robotic radical hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer[J]. Jsls Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, 2008, 12(3): 227-237.
14
Payne TN, Dauterive FR. A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice[J]. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 2008, 15(15): 286-291.
15
Ko EM, Muto MG, Berkowitz RS, et al. Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution[J]. Gynecologic Oncology, 2008, 111(3): 425-430.
16
Sert B, Abeler V. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical carcinoma patients, comparing results with total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy cases. the future is now[J]. International Journal of Medical Robotics & Computer Assisted Surgery, 2007, 3(3): 224-228.
17
丁晓萍，张亭亭，侯庆香，等. 机器人手术系统、腹腔镜及开腹手术治疗宫颈癌的对比研究[J]. 临床肿瘤学杂志，2014，19(7): 608-612.
18
Maggioni A, Minig L, Zanagnolo V, et al. Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy: a case control study [J]. Gynecologic Oncology, 2009, 115(1): 60-64.
19
Kruijdenberg CB, Lc VDE, Hendriks JC, et al. Robot-assisted versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer, a review [J]. Gynecologic Oncology, 2011, 120(3): 334-339.
20
马佳佳，陈必良. 达芬奇机器人手术系统下保留盆腔自主神经宫颈癌广泛性子宫切除术肿瘤学安全性及临床疗效观察[J]. 实用医院临床杂志，2015，12(1): 12-16.
21
Nezhat C, Lavie O, Hsu S, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy-a retrospective matched control study[J]. Fertility and Sterility, 2009, 91(2): 556-559.
22
郭芳芳，李冬青，齐金红，等. 机器人手术与传统腹腔镜宫颈癌根治术的临床比较[J/CD]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2016, 9(4): 224-227.
[1] 王一然, 王平. 《巴西肿瘤外科协会盆腔廓清术治疗宫颈癌指南》解读[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2021, 17(02): 142-151.
[2] 郑晓霞, 李大鹏. 中性粒细胞计数与淋巴细胞计数比值对局部晚期宫颈癌患者新辅助化疗疗效的预测价值[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2020, 16(05): 558-566.
[3] 苏英杰, 窦磊, 田东立, 芦恩婷, 张颐. 全脏器反位患者机器人辅助下宫颈癌根治术一例[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 14(04): 245-247.
[4] 潘玉英, 孙力, 王桂香, 李华, 杨萌. 腹腔镜手术治疗宫颈癌复发一例[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 14(01): 53-57.
[5] 马丽芳, 邹冬玲, 周琦. 达芬奇机器人辅助腹主动脉旁淋巴结切除术在宫颈癌分期术中的应用[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 13(05): 278-282.
[6] 郭静, 齐卫红. circ_0000218通过靶向吸附miR-1182对宫颈癌HeLa细胞增殖、迁移和侵袭的影响[J]. 中华细胞与干细胞杂志(电子版), 2021, 11(02): 113-119.
[7] 廖欣, 顾一平, 廖薇. 低强度超声对HeLa肿瘤细胞凋亡的诱导作用及其机制[J]. 中华细胞与干细胞杂志(电子版), 2020, 10(05): 277-282.
[8] 首泉, 王茜, 谭志远. miR-98-5p靶向PYGO2基因对宫颈癌细胞增殖、迁移和侵袭的影响及其作用机制研究[J]. 中华细胞与干细胞杂志(电子版), 2020, 10(03): 138-145.
[9] 李红芳, 赵小环, 王丽萍, 许晓燕, 孙高高. 子宫颈癌细胞学新型生物标志、诊断标志物的筛选和开发现状[J]. 中华细胞与干细胞杂志(电子版), 2019, 09(06): 375-384.
[10] 吴宏宇, 汤庆超, 金英虎, 胡志乔, 王贵玉. 机器人腹部无辅助切口经直肠拖出标本的高位直肠癌根治术（NOSES-IV式）（附视频）[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2020, 09(06): 645-648.
[11] 吴宏宇, 黄睿, 胡汉卿, 管子龙, 王贵玉. 机器人腹部无辅助切口经直肠拉出切除标本的中位直肠癌根治术（NOSES-Ⅱ式）（附视频）[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2020, 09(04): 429-432.
[12] 朱伟权, 刘东宁, 唐和春, 罗瑞, 何鹏辉, 温祥琼, 唐城, 李太原. 腹部无辅助切口经肛门取标本的机器人高位直肠癌根治术一例报道（CRC-NOSES Ⅳ式）[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2020, 09(02): 201-203.
[13] 刘萍, 潘九林. 补救性放化疗对宫颈癌术后盆腔复发和未控患者的治疗价值[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(04): 267-271.
[14] 张悦, 顾福嘉. MDR1甲基化对宫颈癌介入栓塞化疗疗效的影响[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2020, 08(01): 51-56.
[15] 贾卓奇, 周维茹, 陈南征, 贺海奇, 李硕, 马磊, 张勇, 张广健, 付军科. 达芬奇机器人食管裂孔疝修补术临床疗效分析[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2020, 07(02): 71-76.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号