达芬奇机器人手术系统辅助和腹腔镜辅助全结肠系膜切除术治疗右半结肠癌的疗效分析

Efficacy analysis of Da Vinci robotic assisted and laparoscopic assisted complete mesocolic excision for right hemicolon cancer

  • 摘要:
    目的 探讨达芬奇机器人手术系统辅助和腹腔镜辅助全结肠系膜切除术(CME)治疗右半结肠癌的临床疗效。
    方法 采用倾向评分匹配及回顾性队列研究方法。收集2016年7月至2019年7月陆军特色医学中心大坪医院收治的119例右半结肠癌病人的临床病理资料;男63例,女56例;年龄为(61±11)岁。119例病人均行右半结肠CME,其中37例行达芬奇机器人手术系统辅助右半结肠CME病人设为机器人组;82例行腹腔镜辅助右半结肠CME病人设为腹腔镜组。观察指标:(1)倾向评分匹配情况及匹配后两组病人一般资料比较。(2)术中和术后情况。(3)术后病理学检查情况。(4)随访情况。采用门诊或电话方式进行随访,了解病人术后肿瘤转移和生存情况。随访时间截至2019年8月。倾向评分匹配按1∶1最近邻匹配法匹配。正态分布的计量资料以x±s表示,组间比较采用独立样本t检验。计数资料以绝对数表示,组间比较采用χ²检验或Fisher确切概率法。采用Kaplan‑Meier法计算生存率,采用GraphPad Prism 5软件绘制生存曲线;采用Log‑rank检验进行生存分析。
    结果 (1)倾向评分匹配情况及匹配后两组病人一般资料比较:119例病人中,68例(机器人组与腹腔镜组各34例)配对成功。机器人组与腹腔镜组病人倾向评分匹配前主刀医师(医师A、医师B)分别为32、5例和49、33例,两组病人比较,差异有统计学意义(χ²=8.381,P<0.05)。经倾向评分匹配后机器人组和腹腔镜组病人性别(男、女),年龄,体质量指数(BMI),TNM分期(Ⅰ期、Ⅱ期、Ⅲ期),肿瘤位置(回盲部、升结肠、结肠肝曲、横结肠),主刀医师(医师A、医师B)分别为17、17例,(62±10)岁,(22.4±2.7)kg/m2,4、14、16例,3、15、10、6例,29、5例和15、19例,(62±11)岁,(22.4±2.8)kg/m2,4、18、12例,2、19、7、6例,30、4例,两组病人上述指标比较,差异均无统计学意义(χ²=0.236,t=0.127、0.044,χ²=1.071、1.200、0.000,P>0.05)。(2)术中和术后情况:倾向评分匹配后机器人组与腹腔镜组病人手术时间、术中出血量、中转开腹、术后首次下床活动时间、术后首次肛门排气时间、术后首次进食流质食物时间、术后住院时间、总住院费用分别为(235±50)min,(73±45)mL,0,(1.9±0.7)d,(2.9±1.2)d,(3.1±2.4)d,(9.1±4.9)d,(9.6±1.8)万元和(183±35)min,(74±74)mL,1例,(2.1±0.6)d,(3.3±1.4)d,(3.5±4.2)d,(9.1±3.9)d,(6.3±1.6)万元。两组病人手术时间、总住院费用比较,差异均有统计学意义(t=5.050,8.165,P<0.05),术中出血量、术后首次下床活动时间、术后首次肛门排气时间、术后首次进食流质食物时间、术后住院时间比较,差异均无统计学意义(t=0.118,-0.462,-1.129,-1.291,0.027,P>0.05)。两组病人中转开腹比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。机器人组和腹腔镜组病人发生术后并发症分别为5例和7例。两组病人术后并发症比较,差异无统计学意义(χ²=0.405,P>0.05)。(3)术后病理学检查情况:倾向评分匹配后机器人组与腹腔镜组病人R0切除,淋巴结清扫数目,淋巴结转移,肿瘤分化类型(高分化腺癌、中分化腺癌、低分化腺癌、黏液腺癌)分别为34例,(17±5)枚,14例,1、22、6、5例和34例,(17±5)枚,12例,2、20、2、10例。两组病人R0切除比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),淋巴结清扫数目、淋巴结转移、肿瘤分化类型比较,差异均无统计学意义(t=0.488,χ²=0.249、4.095,P>0.05)。(4)随访情况:倾向评分匹配后68例病人均获得术后随访,随访时间为1~36个月,中位随访时间为24个月。机器人组病人随访时间为(20±13)个月,腹腔镜组病人随访时间为(21±13)个月。两组病人比较,差异无统计学意义(t=0.409,P>0.05)。随访期间,机器人组3例病人、腹腔镜组4例病人发生肿瘤远处转移。机器人组与腹腔镜组病人术后3年无病生存率、总体生存率分别为83.9%、86.8%和82.0%、86.6%,两组病人比较,差异均无统计学意义(χ²=0.188、0.193,P>0.05)。
    结论 达芬奇机器人手术系统辅助CME治疗右半结肠癌安全、可行。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy of Da Vinci robotic assisted and laparos-copic assisted complete mesocolic excision (CME) for right hemicolon cancer.
    Methods The propensity score matching and retrospective cohort study was conducted. The clinicopatho-logical data of 119 patients with right hemicolon cancer who were admitted to Daping Hospital, Army Medical University from July 2016 to July 2019 were collected. There were 63 males and 56 females, aged (61±11)years. All the 119 patients underwent CME of right hemicolon. Of 119 patients, 37 cases undergoing Da Vinci robotic assisted CME of right hemicolon were divided into robotic group and 82 cases undergoing laparoscopic assisted CME of right hemicolon were divided into laparoscopic group. Observation indicators: (1) the propensity score matching conditions and comparison of general data between the two groups after propensity score matching; (2)intraoperative and postoperative situations; (3) postoperative pathological examination; (4)follow‑up. Follow‑up was conducted by outpatient examination or telephone interview to detect tumor metastasis and survival of patients after surgery up to August 2019. The propensity score matching was conducted by 1∶1 matching using the nearest neighbor method. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean±SD, and comparison between groups was conducted using the independent sample t test. Count data were represented as absolute numbers, and comparison between groups was conducted using the chi‑square test or Fisher exact probability. The Kaplan‑Meier method was used to calculate survival rate and the GraphPad Prism 5 software was used to draw survival curve. The Log‑rank test was used for survival analysis.
    Results (1) The propensity score matching conditions and comparison of general data between the two groups after propensity score matching: 68 of 119 patients had successful matching, including 34 cases in each group. Before propensity score matching, cases undergoing surgery by surgeon A or surgeon B were 32, 5 of the robotic group, versus 49, 33 of the laparoscopic group, showing a significant difference between the two groups (χ²=8.381, P<0.05). After propensity score matching, the gender (males or females), age, body mass index (BMI), cases with tumor classified as stageⅠ, stage Ⅱ or stage Ⅲ of TNM staging, cases with tumor located at ileocecal region, ascending colon, hepatic flexor of colon or transverse colon, cases undergoing surgery by surgeon A or surgeon B were 17, 17, (62±10)years, (22.4±2.7)kg/m2, 4, 14, 16, 3, 15, 10, 6, 29, 5 of the robotic group, versus 15, 19, (62±11)years, (22.4±2.8)kg/m2, 4, 18, 12, 2, 19, 7, 6, 30, 4 of the laparoscopic group, showing no significant difference between the two groups (χ²=0.236, t=0.127, 0.044, χ²=1.071, 1.200, 0.000, P>0.05). (2) Intraoperative and postoperative situations: after propensity score matching, the operation time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, cases undergoing conversion to open surgery, time to postoperative initial out‑of‑bed activities, time to postoperative first flatus, time to postoperative initial liquid food intake, duration of postoperative hospital stay and treatment expenses were (235±50)minutes, (73±45)mL, 0, (1.9±0.7)days, (2.9±1.2)days, (3.1±2.4)days, (9.1±4.9)days, (9.6±1.8)×104 yuan of the robotic group, versus (183±35)minutes, (74±74)mL, 1, (2.1±0.6)days, (3.3±1.4)days, (3.5±4.2)days, (9.1±3.9)days, (6.3±1.6)×104 yuan of the laparoscopic group, respectively. There were significant differences in the operation time and treatment expenses between the two groups (t=5.050, 8.165, P<0.05) while there was no significant difference in the volume of intraoperative blood loss, time to postoperative initial out‑of‑bed activities, time to postoperative first flatus, time to postoperative initial liquid food intake or duration of postoperative hospital stay between the two groups (t=0.118, ‒0.462, ‒1.129, ‒1.291, 0.027, P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the conversion to open surgery between the two groups (P>0.05). Five patients of the robotic group and 7 patients of the laparoscopic group had postoperative complications. There was no significant difference in the postoperative complications between the two groups (χ²=0.405, P>0.05). (3) Postoperative pathological examination: after propensity score matching, cases with R0 resection, the number of lymph node dissected, cases with lymph node metastasis and cases with tumor differentiation as well differentiated adenocarcinoma, moderately differentiated adeno-carcinoma, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma or mucinous adenocarcinoma were 34, 17±5, 14, 1, 22, 6, 5 of the robotic group, versus 34, 17±5, 12, 2,20, 2, 10 of the laparoscopic group, respectively. There was no significant difference in the R0 resection between the two groups (P>0.05) and there was no significant difference in the number of lymph node dissected, lymph node metastasis and tumor differentiation between the two groups (t=0.488, χ²=0.249, 4.095, P>0.05). (4) Follow‑up: after propensity score matching, 68 patients were followed up for 1‒36 months, with a median follow‑up time of 24 months. The follow‑up time was (20±13)months of the robotic group, versus (21±13)months of the laparoscopic group, showing no significant difference between the two groups (t=0.409, P>0.05). During the follow‑up, 3 cases of the robotic group and 4 cases of the laparoscopic group had tumor distant metastasis. The disease‑free survival rate and overall survival rate at postoperative 3 years were 83.9% and 86.8% of the robotic group, versus 82.0% and 86.6% of the laparoscopic group, showing no significant difference between the two groups (χ²=0.188, 0.193, P>0.05).
    Conclusion Da Vinci robotic assisted CME for right hemicolon cancer is safe and feasible.

     

/

返回文章
返回