ObjectiveTo evaluate the short-term effectiveness of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) by meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched for manuscripts about RDP versus LDP form PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, CKNI, CBM, and WanFang Databases. The parallel quality assessment was selected according to the literature inclusion and exclusion criteria. Relevant data were extracted and meta-analysis was performed by using Revman 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 23 articles were included, and a total of3 487 patients enrolled who underwent pancreatic body resection. Meta-analysis results showed that compared with the LDP group, the RDP group had a longer operation time [MD=15.52, 95%CI was (0.60, 30.45), P=0.04], but the intraoperative blood loss was less [MD=–59.18, 95%CI was (–111.62, –6.73), P=0.03], the intraoperative spleen preservation rate was higher [OR=1.74, 95%CI was (1.02, 2.96), P=0.04], the intraoperative conversion to open rate was lower [ OR=0.45, 95%CI was (0.34, 0.60), P<0.000 01], and postoperative hospital stay was shorter [MD=–0.90, 95%CI was (–1.70, –0.10), P=0.03], while there were no significant differences in intraoperative blood transfusion rate [OR=0.88, 95%CI was (0.60, 1.30), P=0.52], incidence of postoperative overall complication [OR=0.88, 95%CI was (0.68, 1.13), P=0.32] and pancreatic leakage [OR=0.91, 95%CI was (0.72, 1.14), P=0.41], 90-day readmission rate [OR=1.32, 95%CI was (0.95, 1.83), P=0.10], and 90-day reoperation rate [OR=0.73, 95%CI was (0.40, 1.33), P=0.30].ConclusionsRDP has the advantages of less bleeding, low turnover rate, and short postoperative hospital stay. However, due to the quality limitations of the included studies, the above conclusions still need to be verified by more high-quality studies.
ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical value of laparoscopic cholecystectomy following “A-B-D” approach applied in the operation of acute suppurative or gangrenous cholecystitis.MethodsWe sought out 45 patients diagnosed as acute suppurative or gangrenous cholecystitis and treated by laparoscopic cholecystectomy following the “A-B-D” approach in People’s Hospital of Leshan from Sep. 2019 to Dec. 2020 as the observation group (ABD observation group), and sought out 50 patients with the same diseases but treated by conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy from Jun. 2018 to Aug. 2019 as the matched group (conventional matched group). We analyzed and compared the parameters related to safety and efficacy of the two groups retrospectively.ResultsA total of 95 patients were included, including 45 patients in the ABD observation group (26 cases of acute suppurative cholecystitis, 19 cases of acute gangrenous cholecystitis) and 50 patients in the conventional matched group (24 cases of acute suppurative cholecystitis, 26 cases of acute gangrenous cholecystitis). There were no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index, disease composition, gallbladder condition, and preoperative complications between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no bile duct injury case in the ABD observation group (0), while there were 4 cases (8.0%) in the conventional matched group, but the statistical results showed no statistical significance between the two groups (P=0.054). One case (2.2%) in the ABD observation group converted to laparotomy, which was significantly lower than the 10 cases (20.0%) in the conventional matched group, and the difference was statistically significant (P=0.017). In addition, there were no significant differences for other parameters including operative time, postoperative hospital stay, incidences of intraoperative bleeding and postoperative bleeding between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionsThe laparoscopic cholecystectomy following the “A-B-D” approach can help distinguish the anatomical structure of cystic duct and extrahepatic bile duct clearly, and it can help prevent biliary tract injury effectively and reduce the probability of conversion to laparotomy. It is worthy of clinical application and promotion, especially in the majority of county hospitals.
ObjectiveTo investigate safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in municipal hospitals.MethodsThe clinic data of patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy in the Leshan People’s Hospital from November 2017 to January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into LPD group and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) group according to the operation methods, and the indicators of perioperative safety and effectiveness of the two groups were compared.ResultsA total of 72 patients were enrolled in this study, including 30 patients in the LPD group and 42 patients in the OPD group. There were no significant differences in the age, gender, and other baseline indicators between the two groups (P>0.05). Although the operative time of the LPD group was longer than that of the OPD group (P<0.05), the intraoperative blood loss in the LPD group was significantly less than that in the OPD group (P<0.05), the postoperative hospital stay, postoperative exhaust time, and postoperative ambulation time in the LPD group were shorter than those in the OPD group (P<0.05). And there were no significant differences in the terms of intraoperative red blood cell transfusion, intraoperative blood transfusion rate, postoperative ICU hospitalization time, hospitalization expenses, overall complications and specific complications (except incision infection rate of LPD group was significantly lower than OPD group, P=0.031) between the two groups (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in the positive rate of resection margin, number of lymph node dissection, and positive rate of lymph node between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionLPD has the same safety and effectiveness as OPD in the perioperative period in municipal hospitals, and is more conducive to postoperative recovery of patients.
