リケラボ論文検索は、全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索できる論文検索サービスです。

リケラボ 全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索するならリケラボ論文検索大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる

リケラボ 全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索するならリケラボ論文検索大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる

大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる 「Prevalence and safety of robotic surgery for gastrointestinal malignant tumors in Japan」の論文概要。リケラボ論文検索は、全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索できる論文検索サービスです。
リケラボ

コピーが完了しました

URLをコピーしました

論文の公開元へ論文の公開元へ
書き出し

Prevalence and safety of robotic surgery for gastrointestinal malignant tumors in Japan

Nishigori, Tatsuto Ichihara, Nao Obama, Kazutaka Uyama, Ichiro Miyata, Hiroaki Inomata, Masafumi Kakeji, Yoshihiro Kitagawa, Yuko Sakai, Yoshiharu 京都大学 DOI:10.1002/ags3.12579

2022.11

概要

[Aim] The National Health Insurance system has reimbursed robotic gastrointestinal surgery since April 2018 in Japan. Additionally, strict facility and surgeon standards were established by the government and the academic society. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and safety of robotic surgery using a Japanese nationwide web-based database. [Methods] Patients who underwent the following robotic surgeries for malignant tumors in 2018 were included: esophagectomy (RE), total gastrectomy (RTG), distal gastrectomy (RDG), proximal gastrectomy (RPG), low anterior resection (RLAR), and rectal resections other than RLAR (RRR). The number of cases and surgical mortality rates each month were calculated to evaluate the prevalence and safety of robotic procedures. [Results] A total of 3281 patients underwent robotic gastrointestinal surgery. The monthly number of robotic surgeries nearly doubled in April 2018 when they were initially reimbursed by the National Health Insurance system. Operative mortality rates were 0.9%, 0.4%, 0.2%, and 2.8% for RE (n = 330), RTG (n = 239), RDG (n = 1167), and RPG (n = 109), respectively. No mortality was observed in RLAR (n = 1062) or RRR (n = 374). [Conclusion] Robotic surgery for gastrointestinal malignant tumors was safely introduced into daily clinical practice along with rigorous surgeon and facility standards in Japan.

論文の公開元へ

この論文で使われている画像

関連論文

関連論文をもっと見る

参考文献

1. Mori T, Kimura T, Kitajima M. Skill accreditation system for lapa- roscopic gastroenterologic surgeons in Japan. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2010;19(1):18–23.

2. Seto Y, Kakeji Y, Miyata H, Iwanaka T. National Clinical Database (NCD) in Japan for gastroenterological surgery: brief introduction. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2017;1(2):80–1.

3. Gotoh M, Miyata H, Hashimoto H, Wakabayashi G, Konno H, Miyakawa S, et al. National Clinical Database feedback implemen- tation for quality improvement of cancer treatment in Japan: from good to great through transparency. Surg Today. 2016;46(1):38–47.

4. Tomotaki A, Kumamaru H, Hashimoto H, Takahashi A, Ono M, Iwanaka T, et al. Evaluating the quality of data from the Japanese National Clinical Database 2011 via a comparison with re- gional government report data and medical charts. Surg Today. 2019;49(1):65–71.

5. Hasegawa H, Takahashi A, Kakeji Y, Ueno H, Eguchi S, Endo I, et al. Surgical outcomes of gastroenterological surgery in Japan: report of the National Clinical Database 2011-2017. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2019;3(4):426–50.

6. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical com- plications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 pa- tients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.

7. Kakeji Y, Takahashi A, Hasegawa H, Ueno H, Eguchi S, Endo I, et al. Surgical outcomes in gastroenterological surgery in Japan: Report of the National Clinical Database 2011-2018. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2020;4(3):250–74.

8. Espinoza-Mercado F, Imai TA, Borgella JD, Sarkissian A, Serna- Gallegos D, Alban RF, et al. Does the approach matter? comparing survival in robotic, minimally invasive, and open esophagectomies. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;107(2):378–85.

9. Weksler B, Sullivan JL. Survival after esophagectomy: a propensity- matched study of different surgical approaches. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017 Oct;104(4):1138–46.

10. Kim H-I, Han S-U, Yang H-K, Kim YW, Lee HJ, Ryu KW, et al. Multicenter prospective comparative study of robotic versus lap- aroscopic gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2016;263(1):103–9.

11. van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, May AM, Schippers C, Brosens LAA, Joore HCA, et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive tho- racolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2019;269(4):621–30.

12. Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, et al. Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1569–80.

13. Chapman BC, Edgcomb M, Gleisner A, Vogel JD. Outcomes in rec- tal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection compared to open: a propensity-matched analysis of the NCDB (2010-2015). Surg Endosc. 2020;34(11):4754–71.

14. Konstantinidis IT, Ituarte P, Woo Y, Warner SG, Melstrom K, Kim J, et al. Trends and outcomes of robotic surgery for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers in the USA: maintaining perioperative and oncolog- icsafety. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(11):4932–42.

15. Zheng C, Li X-K, Zhang C, Zhou H, Ji SG, Zhong JH, et al. Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes between robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Dis. 2021;13(2):708–19.

16. Yoshida N, Yamamoto H, Baba H, Miyata H, Watanabe M, Toh Y, et al. Can minimally invasive esophagectomy replace open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer? Latest analysis of 24,233 esophagectomies from the Japanese National Clinical Database. Ann Surg. 2020;272(1):118–24.

17. Takeuchi H, Miyata H, Ozawa S, Udagawa H, Osugi H, Matsubara H, et al. Comparison of short-term outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer using a nationwide database in Japan. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(7):1821–7.

18. Uyama I, Suda K, Nakauchi M, Kinoshita T, Noshiro H, Takiguchi S, et al. Clinical advantages of robotic gastrectomy for clinical stage I/ II gastric cancer: a multi-institutional prospective single-arm study. Gastric Cancer. 2019 Mar;22(2):377–85.

19. Guerrini GP, Esposito G, Magistri P, Serra V, Guidetti C, Olivieri T, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: the largest meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2020;82:210–28.

20. Akagi T, Endo H, Inomata M, Yamamoto H, Mori T, Kojima K, et al. Clinical impact of Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System (ESSQS) by Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery (JSES) for laparoscopic distal gastrectomy and low anterior resection based on the National Clinical Database (NCD) registry. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2020;4(6):721–34.

21. Etoh T, Honda M, Kumamaru H, Miyata H, Yoshida K, Kodera Y, et al. Morbidity and mortality from a propensity score-matched, prospective cohort study of laparoscopic versus open total gas- trectomy for gastric cancer: data from a nationwide web-based database. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(6):2766–73.

22. Kodera Y, Yoshida K, Kumamaru H, Kakeji Y, Hiki N, Etoh T, et al. Introducing laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer in general practice: a retrospective cohort study based on a nation- wide registry database in Japan. Gastric Cancer. 2019;22(1):202–13.

23. Wang G, Wang Z, Jiang Z, Liu J, Zhao J, Li J. Male urinary and sexual function after robotic pelvic autonomic nerve-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. Int J Med Robot. 2017;13(1):e1725.

24. Tang B, Lei X, Ai J, Huang Z, Shi J, Li T. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg Oncol. 2021;19(1):38.

参考文献をもっと見る

全国の大学の
卒論・修論・学位論文
を
一発検索！

この論文の関連論文を見る