Cargando…

Safety and effectiveness of the da Vinci robot with the "3+2" mode for distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND: Recently, no relevant research has focused on the relationship between the clinical efficacy of da Vinci robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the number of mechanical arms and assistants used for RDP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and advantages of RDP wi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhan, Weipeng, Hu, Ming, Han, Caiwen, Tian, Hongwei, Jing, Wutang, Li, Xiaofei, Shi, Hao, Yang, Xiaojun, Guo, Tiankang, Su, He, Ma, Yuntao
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6675730/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31210421
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2353
_version_ 1783440655632039936
author Zhan, Weipeng
Hu, Ming
Han, Caiwen
Tian, Hongwei
Jing, Wutang
Li, Xiaofei
Shi, Hao
Yang, Xiaojun
Guo, Tiankang
Su, He
Ma, Yuntao
author_facet Zhan, Weipeng
Hu, Ming
Han, Caiwen
Tian, Hongwei
Jing, Wutang
Li, Xiaofei
Shi, Hao
Yang, Xiaojun
Guo, Tiankang
Su, He
Ma, Yuntao
author_sort Zhan, Weipeng
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Recently, no relevant research has focused on the relationship between the clinical efficacy of da Vinci robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the number of mechanical arms and assistants used for RDP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and advantages of RDP with the “3 + 2” mode. METHODS: Clinical data from 53 patients (observation group) who received RDP using the “3 + 2” mode in our department, from March 2016 to September 2018, were reviewed. An additional 53 patients who received RDP using the classical mode were chosen at random for the control group. Short‐term outcomes for the two groups were compared. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for estimated blood loss, postoperative day of flatus passage, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complication (P > 0.05). Compared with the control group, the observation group had a significantly shorter operative time (166.9 ± 13.3 vs 192.6 ± 11.1 minutes, P < 0.001), lower surgical costs ($2827.79 ± $173.02 vs $3900.63 ± $317.29, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The RDP using the “3 + 2” mode can increase the exposure of surgical field, improve cooperation between assistants, lower the surgical costs, and shorten the operative time and learning curve. Moreover, the clinical effect is equal to that of RDP using the classical mode. These findings indicate that RDP using the “3 + 2” mode is safe and feasible for institutions that are equipped for robot‐assisted surgery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6675730
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66757302019-08-06 Safety and effectiveness of the da Vinci robot with the "3+2" mode for distal pancreatectomy Zhan, Weipeng Hu, Ming Han, Caiwen Tian, Hongwei Jing, Wutang Li, Xiaofei Shi, Hao Yang, Xiaojun Guo, Tiankang Su, He Ma, Yuntao Cancer Med Clinical Cancer Research BACKGROUND: Recently, no relevant research has focused on the relationship between the clinical efficacy of da Vinci robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the number of mechanical arms and assistants used for RDP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and advantages of RDP with the “3 + 2” mode. METHODS: Clinical data from 53 patients (observation group) who received RDP using the “3 + 2” mode in our department, from March 2016 to September 2018, were reviewed. An additional 53 patients who received RDP using the classical mode were chosen at random for the control group. Short‐term outcomes for the two groups were compared. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for estimated blood loss, postoperative day of flatus passage, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complication (P > 0.05). Compared with the control group, the observation group had a significantly shorter operative time (166.9 ± 13.3 vs 192.6 ± 11.1 minutes, P < 0.001), lower surgical costs ($2827.79 ± $173.02 vs $3900.63 ± $317.29, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The RDP using the “3 + 2” mode can increase the exposure of surgical field, improve cooperation between assistants, lower the surgical costs, and shorten the operative time and learning curve. Moreover, the clinical effect is equal to that of RDP using the classical mode. These findings indicate that RDP using the “3 + 2” mode is safe and feasible for institutions that are equipped for robot‐assisted surgery. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6675730/ /pubmed/31210421 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2353 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Cancer Research
Zhan, Weipeng
Hu, Ming
Han, Caiwen
Tian, Hongwei
Jing, Wutang
Li, Xiaofei
Shi, Hao
Yang, Xiaojun
Guo, Tiankang
Su, He
Ma, Yuntao
Safety and effectiveness of the da Vinci robot with the "3+2" mode for distal pancreatectomy
title Safety and effectiveness of the da Vinci robot with the "3+2" mode for distal pancreatectomy
title_full Safety and effectiveness of the da Vinci robot with the "3+2" mode for distal pancreatectomy
title_fullStr Safety and effectiveness of the da Vinci robot with the "3+2" mode for distal pancreatectomy
title_full_unstemmed Safety and effectiveness of the da Vinci robot with the "3+2" mode for distal pancreatectomy
title_short Safety and effectiveness of the da Vinci robot with the "3+2" mode for distal pancreatectomy
title_sort safety and effectiveness of the da vinci robot with the "3+2" mode for distal pancreatectomy
topic Clinical Cancer Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6675730/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31210421
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2353
work_keys_str_mv AT zhanweipeng safetyandeffectivenessofthedavincirobotwiththe32modefordistalpancreatectomy
AT huming safetyandeffectivenessofthedavincirobotwiththe32modefordistalpancreatectomy
AT hancaiwen safetyandeffectivenessofthedavincirobotwiththe32modefordistalpancreatectomy
AT tianhongwei safetyandeffectivenessofthedavincirobotwiththe32modefordistalpancreatectomy
AT jingwutang safetyandeffectivenessofthedavincirobotwiththe32modefordistalpancreatectomy
AT lixiaofei safetyandeffectivenessofthedavincirobotwiththe32modefordistalpancreatectomy
AT shihao safetyandeffectivenessofthedavincirobotwiththe32modefordistalpancreatectomy
AT yangxiaojun safetyandeffectivenessofthedavincirobotwiththe32modefordistalpancreatectomy
AT guotiankang safetyandeffectivenessofthedavincirobotwiththe32modefordistalpancreatectomy
AT suhe safetyandeffectivenessofthedavincirobotwiththe32modefordistalpancreatectomy
AT mayuntao safetyandeffectivenessofthedavincirobotwiththe32modefordistalpancreatectomy