首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Urology >Re: A randomized prospective study of single-port and four-port approaches for hysterectomy in terms of postoperative pain
【24h】

Re: A randomized prospective study of single-port and four-port approaches for hysterectomy in terms of postoperative pain

机译:回复:就术后疼痛而言,单孔和四孔子宫切除术的一项随机前瞻性研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: Although laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery is feasible, it poses many technical challenges not seen in conventional laparoscopy. Recent interest and widespread implementation of LESS stems from advancements in commercially available access port technology. Consequently, this study objectively compared the technical performance between conventional laparoscopic and LESS surgical ports-in a modified Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) simulator. Methods: The 24 novice participants in this study performed the FLS peg transfer task using two conventional laparoscopic 12-mm working ports, the SILS port, the TriPort access system, and the GelPOINT system with two standard length 5-mm graspers. Each participant completed the task using conventional laparoscopy first for familiarization, followed by each of the three LESS surgical ports in random order. Task completion time, errors, and subjective questionnaire ratings were used to compare conventional laparoscopy and the single-port devices. Congruent with FLS scoring procedures, task completion time and errors were used to compute a standardized task score for each port. Results: The task score did not differ significantly between conventional laparoscopy and the single-port devices. Additionally, there were no task score differences between trials for either the SILS port or the GelPOINT system. There was a significant performance decrement starting with the TriPort versus starting with either the SILS port or the GelPOINT, which resulted in the lowest overall trial task score (p<0.05). Task completion difficulty and instrument maneuverability resulted in no significant differences between ports. Ease of use and overall rank were significant, with conventional laparoscopy rated as the easiest to use and the highest overall followed by the GelPOINT system. Conclusions: Overall, the TriPort may be more challenging for novices to use in learning the LESS procedure than either the SILS port or the GelPOINT system. The GelPOINT system may offer the most consistent platform for LESS performance and novice skill acquisition.
机译:背景:尽管腹腔镜内窥镜单点手术是可行的,但它带来了许多传统腹腔镜检查所没有的技术挑战。 LESS的最新兴趣和广泛实施源于可商用的访问端口技术的进步。因此,本研究在改良的腹腔镜手术基础(FLS)模拟器中客观地比较了常规腹腔镜手术口和LESS手术口之间的技术性能。方法:这项研究的24名新手参与者使用两个常规的腹腔镜12毫米工作口,SILS口,TriPort进入系统和带有两个标准长度5毫米抓紧器的GelPOINT系统执行FLS钉转移任务。每个参与者首先使用常规的腹腔镜检查完成了熟悉的任务,然后以随机顺序依次使用了三个LESS手术端口中的每一个。任务完成时间,错误和主观问卷评分用于比较常规腹腔镜检查和单端口设备。与FLS评分程序,任务完成时间和错误相一致,用于计算每个端口的标准化任务分数。结果:常规腹腔镜检查和单端口设备之间的任务得分没有显着差异。此外,在SILS端口或GelPOINT系统的试验之间,任务得分没有差异。从TriPort开始与从SILS端口或GelPOINT开始显着降低了性能,这导致最低的总体试验任务评分(p <0.05)。任务完成难度和仪器可操作性导致端口之间没有显着差异。易用性和总体等级非常重要,常规腹腔镜检查被认为是最易使用且总体最高的,其次是GelPOINT系统。结论:总体而言,对于新手来说,在学习LESS程序中使用TriPort可能比SILS端口或GelPOINT系统更具挑战性。 GelPOINT系统可能为LESS性能和新手技能获取提供最一致的平台。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号