• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Surgical Endoscopy >The use of curved vs. straight instruments in single port access surgery, on standardized box trainer tasks.
【24h】

The use of curved vs. straight instruments in single port access surgery, on standardized box trainer tasks.

机译：在单口入路手术中使用弯曲器械和直线器械，以完成标准化的箱式教练机任务。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

BACKGROUND: Single-port access (SPA) surgery is a novel surgical technique to create nearly "scarless" surgery. SPA surgery appears to be safe and feasible, but the exposure and handling of tissue may not be optimal. Therefore, the performance of SPA surgery with different instruments used and conventional laparoscopy is compared. METHODS: Fifteen participants (>50 laparoscopic procedures) performed three basic tasks (translocation, clip & cut, and tissue dissection, based on the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery) in the box trainer in laparoscopy and SPA settings with both (conventional) crossed and curved instruments. All participants completed a questionnaire, which asked their opinion on the use of instruments and preference. RESULTS: Translocation was performed significantly faster in both laparoscopy and SPA crossed than SPA curved (means, 130.3 and 137.7 vs. 170.7 sec; p < 0.001 and p = 0.005). The errors also were less in laparoscopy and SPA crossed (means, 0.9 and 1.2 vs. 1.6), but not significant. The time to complete the dissection was almost equal between laparoscopy and SPA curved settings, but took longer for SPA crossed, although not significantly (148.1 and 150.8 vs. 179.5 sec). The errors only differed significantly between laparoscopy and SPA crossed (means, 0.5 vs. 1.27; p = 0.044). Fourteen participants still favored conventional laparoscopy and one SPA curved. They also thought SPA curved was better than crossed (means, 3.6 vs. 2.47; p = 0.003) and that exposure is superior in curved (means, 3.4 vs. 2.27; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Although conventional laparoscopy may appear most effective for proper dissection and exposure of tissue, single-port access surgery shows potential. Especially in the tissue dissection task, there is no significant difference in time or errors between conventional laparoscopy and SPA surgery, using specially designed curved instruments. Although the participants favor conventional laparoscopy, this could evolve to a more accepting mind when SPA surgery becomes more available and used in the clinical setting.
机译：背景：单端口接入（SPA）手术是一种新型的手术技术，可用于几乎“无疤”的手术。 SPA手术似乎是安全可行的，但是组织的暴露和处理可能不是最佳的。因此，比较了使用不同仪器和常规腹腔镜进行SPA手术的性能。方法：十五名参与者（> 50例腹腔镜手术）在箱式培训师的腹腔镜检查和SPA设置中（常规）交叉和弯曲地执行了三个基本任务（根据腹腔镜手术的基本原理进行的移位，剪裁和组织解剖）仪器。所有参与者都填写了一份调查表，询问他们对使用工具和偏好的看法。结果：腹腔镜检查和SPA交叉手术均比SPA弯曲手术快得多（平均130.3和137.7与170.7秒; p <0.001和p = 0.005）。腹腔镜检查和SPA交叉检查的误差也较小（平均值分别为0.9和1.2与1.6），但不显着。在腹腔镜检查和SPA弯曲设置之间完成解剖的时间几乎相等，但是SPA穿越花费的时间更长，尽管并不明显（148.1和150.8 vs. 179.5秒）。腹腔镜检查和SPA交叉检查之间的误差仅存在显着差异（平均值为0.5 vs. 1.27; p = 0.044）。 14名参与者仍然偏爱常规腹腔镜检查和一种弯曲的SPA。他们还认为弯曲的SPA比交叉弯曲的要好（平均值分别为3.6和2.47; P = 0.003），弯曲弯曲的SPA效果更好（平均值分别为3.4和2.27; P = 0.002）。结论：尽管常规的腹腔镜检查对于组织的适当解剖和暴露似乎最有效，但单口入路手术显示出潜力。尤其是在组织解剖任务中，使用专门设计的弯曲器械，常规腹腔镜检查和SPA手术之间的时间或错误没有显着差异。尽管参与者偏爱传统的腹腔镜检查，但是当SPA手术变得越来越可用并用于临床时，这种想法可能会演变为更容易接受的想法。

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