THUNDERBEAT在腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术中的应用

贺庆豹; 王明帅; 杨飞亚; 王梦童; 孟令全; 邢念增

doi:10.13201/j.issn.1001-1420.2017.09.009

THUNDERBEAT在腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术中的应用

- 首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院泌尿外科(北京, 100020)
基金项目:
北京市医院管理局“登峰”人才培养计划（编号DFL20150301）

详细信息

通讯作者: 邢念增,E-mail:xingnianzeng@126.com

中图分类号: R737.25

收稿日期: 2017-05-29

Application of THUNDERBEAT in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

- Department of Urology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100020, China

More Information

Corresponding author: XING Nianzeng, E-mail: xingnianzeng@126.com

Received Date: 29 May 2017

摘要

摘要: 目的：THUNDERBEAT （TB）作为一种能够同时输出双极高频电能量和超声波能量的新型手术器械在我国推广应用以来，凭借其独特的优势等到了广大外科医生的青睐。本文通过分析TB在腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术中的应用，评价其临床实用性。方法：回顾性分析2016年1月~2017年5月我院33例腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术（laparoscopic radical prostatectomy，LRP）患者的临床资料，依据是否应用TB将患者分为TB组和非TB组。分别比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、切缘阳性率、淋巴结清扫数目、术后并发症、留置尿管时间、留置引流管时间、术后住院时间方面的差异。结果：在行LRP患者中前列腺切除时间TB组明显短于非TB组[（35.64±8.26）min vs.（48.77±3.56）min，P=0.000]；术后引流管拔除时间TB组明显短于非TB组[（4.63±1.50）d vs.（6.43±2.50）d，P=0.044]；尿管拔除时间TB组明显短于非TB组[（6.46±1.33）d vs.（8.93±4.29）d，P=0.049]；淋巴结清扫数目TB组多于非TB组[（11.65±4.23）vs.（7.69±3.79），P=0.013]；其余方面差异无统计学意义。结论：TB在LRP中展现出了良好的组织抓取、分离、凝血和血管的闭合功能，充分证明了TB是安全、可行的，且在一定程度上具有缩短手术时间，改善患者术后恢复的优势。
- THUNDERBEAT /
- 腹腔镜 /
- 前列腺癌
Abstract: Objective: THUNDERBEAT (TB) as a new type of surgical instrument capable of simultaneously outputting advanced bipolar energy and ultrasonic energy has been popularized in our country, and its distinctive advantages have been favored by the broad masses of surgeons.In this paper, we analyzed the application of TB in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) to evaluate its efficiency.Method: A retrospective study was conducted in 33 patients undergoing LRP from January 2016 to May 2017 in our hospital.Patients were divided into TB group and non-TB group.The baseline data, the preoperative data, operation time, blood loss, intraoperative complications and postoperative complications, surgical margin, number of lymph node dissection, postoperative hospital stay were analyzed.Result: The prostatectomy time in patients with LRP of TB group was significantly less than that of the non-TB group[(35.64±8.26) min vs. (48.77±3.56) min, P=0.000];the removal of drainage tube time of TB group was significantly less than that of the non-TB group[(4.63±1.50) d vs. (6.43±2.50) d, P=0.044];the removal of catheter time was significantly less than that of the non-TB group[(6.46±1.33) d vs. (8.93±4.29) d, P=0.049];the number of lymph nodes dissection of TB group was more than that of the non-TB group[(11.65±4.23) vs. (7.69±3.79), P=0.013].There was no obvious statistical difference in other aspects.Conclusion: The TB device demonstrated efficient and successful performance at tissue grasping, dissection, coagulation and vessel ligation.Our research fully proves TB is safe and feasible, and to some extent can shorten the operation time and improve postoperative recovery.
- THUNDERBEAT /
- laparoscopic /
- prostatic cancer

HTML全文

参考文献(11)

[1]	李普, 邵鹏飞, 成功, 等.经腹腔途径腹腔镜下根治性前列腺切除术与开放式根治性前列腺切除术的疗效比较[J].中华泌尿外科杂志, 2015, 36 (8):588-591.
[2]	Tanaka R, Gitelis M, Meiselman D, et al.Evaluation of Vessel Sealing Performance Among Ultrasonic Devices in a Porcine Model[J].Surg Innov, 2015, 22 (4):338-343.
[3]	廖晓星, 邢念增, 乔鹏, 等."三明治"法尿道重建技术改善腹腔镜下根治性前列腺切除术后早期尿控的效果[J].北京大学学报 (医学版), 2015, 47 (4):601-604.
[4]	Hefermehl L J, Largo R A, Hermanns T, et al.Lateral temperature spread of monopolar, bipolar and ultrasonic instruments for robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery[J].BJU Int, 2014, 114 (2):245-252.
[5]	Van Slycke S, Gillardin J P, Van Den Heede K, et al.Comparison of the harmonic focus and the thunderbeat for open thyroidectomy[J].Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2016, 401 (6):851-859.
[6]	Seehofer D, Mogl M, Boas-Knoop S, et al.Safety and efficacy of new integrated bipolar and ultrasonic scissors compared to conventional laparoscopic 5-mm sealing and cutting instruments[J].Surg Endosc, 2012, 26 (9):2541-2549.
[7]	Milsom J W, Trencheva K, Sonoda T, et al.A prospective trial evaluating the clinical performance of a novel surgical energy device in laparoscopic colon surgery[J].Surg Endosc, 2015, 29 (5):1161-1166.
[8]	Fagotti A, Vizzielli G, Fanfani F, et al.Randomized study comparing use of THUNDERBEAT technology vs standard electrosurgery during laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for gynecologic cancer[J].J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2014, 21 (3):447-453.
[9]	Milsom J, Trencheva K, Monette S, et al.Evaluation of the safety, efficacy, and versatility of a new surgical energy device (THUNDERBEAT) in comparison with Harmonic ACE, LigaSure V, and EnSeal devices in a porcine model[J].J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2012, 22 (4):378-386.
[10]	Liberman M, Khereba M, Goudie E, et al.Pilot study of pulmonary arterial branch sealing using energy devices in an ex vivo model[J].J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2014, 148 (6):3219-3223.
[11]	Allaix M E, Furnée E J, Arezzo A, et al.Energy Sources for Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery:Is One Better than the Others?[J].J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2016, 26 (4):264-269.