Abstract：Objective: To explore the differences between laparoscopic stability tracking system and laparoscopic operation assistant in the effectiveness and safety of surgery. Methods: From January 29, 2019 to December 14, 2019, 100 patients who underwent laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University, Department of Gastrointestinal surgery and Obstetrics, People's Hospital of Peking University, and general surgery Department of the Third Hospital of Peking University were selected as the research objects. According to the central random method, they were divided into study group (n = 50) and control group (n = 50), Patients in the study group were treated with laparoscopic stable tracking system, while patients in the control group were treated with laparoscopic assistant. The efficacy and safety of the two groups were compared Results: Compared with the control group, the number of times of laparoscopic removal and cleaning and the graphic stability were significantly better in the study group, and the differences were statistically significant (P>0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of flexibility and effectiveness of operation, ease of use, and overall satisfaction with improving surgical efficiency (P>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of postoperative adverse events between the two groups (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the rate of good wound healing between the two groups on day 1, day 2, and day 7-10 after surgery (P>0.05). Conclusion: Compared with the laparoscopic operation assistant, the video image stability obtained by the laparoscopic stable tracking system is significantly better, the number of laparoscopic removal and cleaning is less, and the operator's operation satisfaction and postoperative recovery of patients are no less than the laparoscopic operation assistant, which has better effectiveness and safety.
王轩, 王世军, 周莲娥, 万安霞, 康保华. 腹腔镜稳定跟踪系统与腹腔镜操作助手在手术中的有效性以及安全性的对比研究[J]. 河北医学, 2021, 27(7): 1169-1173.
WANG Xuan, WANG Shijun, ZHOU Lian'er, et al. Comparative Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopic Stability Tracking System and Laparoscopic Operation Assistant in Surgery. HeBei Med, 2021, 27(7): 1169-1173.
[1] 容宇,郝雁冰,李彦明,等.微创食管癌根治术与常规开胸手术治疗食管癌的安全性及效果比较[J].河北医科大学学报,2018,38(2):47. [2] 许婷,曹德宏,陈叶,等.机器人辅助腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术后和传统腹腔镜前列腺癌术后尿控对比[J].河北医学,2020,26(7):1125~1130. [3] 吴海俊,李辉华,胡水根,等.腹腔镜手术与开腹手术治疗结直肠癌的临床效果比较[J].中国基层医药,2020,27(14):1689~1692. [4] 赵红英,屈萍.丹莪妇康煎膏及孕三烯酮联合腹腔镜手术治疗有生育需求的子宫内膜异位囊肿46例[J].西部中医药,2020,33(8):116~118. [5] Guangtai Li,Baoping Wu,Zhiping Sun.New minimally invasive surgery for controlling post-partum hemorrhage: Laparoscopic uterine compression sutures[J].Jou Obs Gyn,2019,91(3):45. [6] Priscila R,Armijo,Chun-Kai,et al.Ergonomics of minimally invasive surgery: an analysis of muscle effort and fatigue in the operating room between laparoscopic and robotic surgery.[J].Sur Endo,2018,51(6):23. [7] Mrcsed H K H,Emile S H,Facs A A S,et al.Laparoscopic-guided transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative pain management in minimally invasive surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis[J].Am Coll Surgeons,2020,62(4):15. [8] 杨立,徐臻,任琛琛,等.吲哚菁绿荧光显影在单孔腹腔镜下深部浸润型子宫内膜异位症病灶切除术中的应用[J].郑州大学学报(医学版),2020,55(3):426~430. [9] 何素丽,刘海燕,夏艳,等.经脐单孔腹腔镜手术治疗54例妇科良性病变的临床分析[J].实用临床医药杂志,2019,23(16):97~100. [10] 杨鋆,李东明,曾娜,等.腹腔镜辅助腹横肌平面阻滞技术用于结直肠癌手术安全性和有效性研究[J].中国实用外科杂志,2021,41(4):428~432.
2021, Vol. 27 
冀公网安备13080202000786号