两种通道布局对儿童机器人辅助腹腔镜左侧肾盂成形术影响的对比分析

赵扬; 马立飞; 陶天; 周晓光; 陶元东; 李品; 周辉霞

doi:10.13201/j.issn.1001-1420.2023.05.014

两种通道布局对儿童机器人辅助腹腔镜左侧肾盂成形术影响的对比分析

- 解放军总医院第七医学中心儿童泌尿外科(北京，100010)
基金项目:
首都卫生发展科研专项(No：2022-2-5083)

详细信息

通讯作者: 周辉霞，E-mail：huixia99999@163.com

中图分类号: R693

收稿日期: 2022-08-16

刊出日期: 2023-05-06

Effects of two channel layouts on left robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children

- Department of Pediatric Urology, The Seventh Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100010, China

More Information

Corresponding author: ZHOU Huixia, E-mail: huixia99999@163.com

Received Date: 16 August 2022

Publish Date: 06 May 2023

摘要

摘要: 目的分析两种通道布局对儿童机器人辅助腹腔镜左侧肾盂成形术的影响，探讨改良通道布局在该术式中的可行性与安全性。方法我院2018年3月—2020年3月接受机器人辅助腹腔镜左侧肾盂成形术的肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻患儿共143例。其中传统组(采用传统通道布局)患儿103例，改良组(采用改良通道布局)40例。传统组通道布局于脐部建立8.5 mm镜头通道，脐下正中Pfannenstie线上建立8 mm 1号机械臂通道，以脐为中心正中线上1号机械臂对称点处建立8 mm 2号机械臂通道，在Pfannenstie线上于1号机械臂通道健侧3 cm处建立3 mm辅助通道；改良组通道布局于脐窝下缘建立8.5 cm套管作为镜头通道，于脐窝上缘建立8 mm 2号机械臂通道，于Pfannenstie线处建立8 mm的1号机械臂通道。1号机械臂操作通道健侧3 cm Pfannenstie线上建立3 mm辅助通道。比较两组患儿手术时间、术中出血量、机械臂干扰次数、术后并发症及术后6个月随访情况。结果传统组与改良组手术均顺利完成，无中转开放手术。传统组术中无增加辅助通道，改良组3例患儿增加1个3 mm辅助通道。传统组Docking时间(9.2±2.6) min，改良组(14.7±3.1) min；传统组机械臂操作时间(108.0±10.2) min，改良组(123.5±14.1) min；传统组机械臂干扰次数(3.7±1.2)次，改良组(7.6±1.2)次。术后外观满意度评分传统组(1.3±0.4)分，改良组(2.3±0.4)分。两组Docking时间、机械臂操作时间、机械臂干扰次数以及术后外观满意度比较均差异有统计学意义(均P < 0.05)。传统组出血量(9.5±2.5) mL，改良组(9.9±2.4) mL。两组患儿术后均未发生吻合口狭窄、再梗阻等Clavien Ⅲ~Ⅳ级并发症。传统组术后Clavien Ⅰ~Ⅱ级并发症发生率为22.6%，改良组为23.4%，经过内科保守治疗后均可治愈。传统组术后住院时间(6.2±1.5) d，改良组(7.1±1.5) d；两组患儿术中出血量、术后并发症发生率及术后住院时间比较均差异无统计学意义。两组患儿术后随访泌尿系超声肾盂前后径均较术前明显减小(均P < 0.05)，利尿性肾核素扫描均较术前改善(均P < 0.05)。结论改良通道法可以在儿童机器人辅助腹腔镜左侧肾盂成形术中安全开展，可取得与传统通道布局相当的治疗效果，术后患儿外观满意度高；该技术将镜头通道及2号机械臂操作通道集中于脐缘，可作为以后开展单孔机器人辅助腹腔镜肾盂成形术的技术过度。
- 肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻 /
- 儿童 /
- 改良通道 /
- 机器人辅助腹腔镜
Abstract: Objective To analyze the effects of two different channel layouts on robot-assisted laparoscopic left pyeloplasty in children, and to explore the feasibility and safety of modified channel layout in this operation.Methods From March 2018 to March 2020, 143 children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic left pyeloplasty. Among them, there were 103 children in the traditional group (using traditional channel layout), and 40 children in the modified group. In the traditional group, an 8.5 mm lens channel was established at the umbilical region, an 8 mm No.1 robotic arm channel was established at the median Pfannenstie line below the umbilical region, and an 8 mm No.2 robotic arm channel was established at the symmetry point of No.1 robotic arm on the median line with the umbilical region as the center, an auxiliary channel of 3 mm was established on the Pfannenstie line at 3 cm from the healthy side of the channel of the first robotic arm. In the modified group, an 8.5 cm cannula was established at the lower edge of the umbilicus as the lens channel, an 8 mm No.2 robotic arm channel was established at the upper edge of the umbilicus, and an 8 mm No.1 robotic arm channel was established at the Pfannenstie line. A 3 mm auxiliary channel was established on the 3 cm Pfannenstie line on the healthy side of the manipulator arm 1. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, interference times of mechanical arm, postoperative complications and follow-up at 6 months after operation were compared between the two groups.Results The operations of the traditional group and the modified group were successfully completed without conversion to open surgery. No auxiliary channel was added in the traditional group, and an auxiliary channel of 3 mm was added in 3 children in the modified group. The Docking time was (9.2±2.6) min in the traditional group and (14.7±3.1) min in the modified group. The operation time of the robotic arm was (108.0±10.2) min in the traditional group and (123.5±14.1) min in the modified group. The interference frequency of the traditional group was (3.7±1.2) times, and the modified group was (7.6±1.2) times. The postoperative appearance satisfaction score was (1.3±0.4) in the traditional group and (2.3±0.4) in the modified group. There were significant differences in Docking time, robotic arm operation time, robotic arm interference times, and postoperative appearance satisfaction between the two groups(all P < 0.05). The blood loss was (9.5±2.5) mL in the traditional group and (9.9±2.4) mL in the modified group. There were no Clavien Ⅲ - Ⅳ complications such as anastomotic stenosis or re-obstruction in the two groups. The incidence of postoperative Clavien Ⅰ- Ⅱ complications was 22.6% in the traditional group and 23.4% in the modified group, which were cured by conservative medical treatment. The postoperative hospital stay was (6.2±1.5) days in the traditional group and (7.1±1.5) days in the modified group. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, or postoperative hospital stay between the two groups. The anteroposterior diameter of the renal pelvis in the two groups were significantly reduced (both P < 0.05), and the diuretic renal radionuclide scan were improved (both P < 0.05).Conclusion The modified channel method can be safely carried out in robot-assisted laparoscopic left pyeloplasty in children, it can achieve the same therapeutic effect as the work transfer channel layout. This technique concentrates the lens channel and the No.2 robotic arm operation channel at the umbilical margin, which can be used as a technical transition for single-port robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the future.
- obstruction of the ureteropelvic junction /
- children /
- improved access /
- robot-assisted laparoscopy

HTML全文

图 1 机器人辅助腹腔镜儿童肾盂成形术传统通道布局法模式图及实景图

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 机器人辅助腹腔镜儿童肾盂成形术改良通道布局法模式图及实景图

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 手术相关指标比较 X±S

组别	Docking时间/min	机械臂操作时间/min	机械臂干扰/次	术后外观满意度评分	出血量/mL	ClavienⅠ~Ⅱ级并发症/%	术后住院时间/d
传统组(103例)	9.2±2.6	108.0±10.2	3.7±1.2	1.3±0.4	9.5±2.5	22.6	6.2±1.5
改良组(40例)	14.7±3.1¹⁾	123.5±14.1¹⁾	7.6±1.2¹⁾	2.3±0.4¹⁾	9.9±2.4	23.4	7.1±1.5
与传统组比较，¹⁾P < 0.05。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(11)

[1]	Tasian GE, Casale P. The robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: gateway to advanced reconstruction[J]. Urol Clin North Am, 2015, 42(1): 89-97. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2014.09.008
[2]	Murthy P, Cohn JA, Gundeti MS. Evaluation of robotic-assisted laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children: single-surgeon experience[J]. Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 2015, 97(2): 109-114. doi: 10.1308/003588414X14055925058797
[3]	Salö M, Sjöberg Altemani T, Anderberg M. Pyeloplasty in children: perioperative results and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery[J]. Pediatr Surg Int, 2016, 32(6): 599-607. doi: 10.1007/s00383-016-3869-2
[4]	Van Batavia JP, Casale P. Robotic surgery in pediatric urology[J]. Curr Urol Rep, 2014, 15(5): 402. doi: 10.1007/s11934-014-0402-9
[5]	中华医学会泌尿外科分会小儿泌尿外科学组. 儿童机器人辅助腹腔镜肾盂输尿管连接处梗阻手术操作指南(2020版)[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2020, 41(7): 486-491.
[6]	刘德鸿, 周辉霞, 马立飞, 等. 机器人辅助腹腔镜肾盂成形术治疗小婴儿肾积水的初步经验[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2019, 40(1): 2-7.
[7]	吴勇, 关勇, 王欣, 等. 腹腔镜手术治疗儿童急性症状型肾积水临床价值探讨[J]. 临床泌尿外科杂志, 2021, 10(36): 761-765. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-LCMW202110001.htm
[8]	Gargollo PC. Hidden incision endoscopic surgery: description of technique, parental satisfaction and applications[J]. J Urol, 2011, 185(4): 1425-1431. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.054
[9]	曹华林, 周辉霞, 马立飞, 等. 婴幼儿隐藏切口法机器人辅助腹腔镜肾盂输尿管成形术[J]. 微创泌尿外科杂志, 2017, 6(2): 74-77. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-WCMN201702004.htm
[10]	熊祥华, 周辉霞, 曹华林, 等. 机器人辅助腹腔镜小儿上尿路手术的体位、操作通道设计和机械臂安装应用体会[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2018, 39(8): 601-605.
[11]	Seideman CA, Tan YK, Faddegon S, et al. Robot-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty: technique using the da Vinci Si robotic platform[J]. J Endourol, 2012, 26(8): 971-974.