目的：探讨机器人辅助胸腔镜膈肌折叠术治疗膈膨升的有效性。方法：将2015 年1 月—2020 年1 月华中科技大学同济医学院附属协和医院小儿外科收治的22 例膈膨升患者（男性15 例，女性7 例）按手术方式分为机器人辅助胸腔镜组（9 例）与传统胸腔镜组（13 例）。采用回顾性研究的方法，收集两组患者一般资料、手术时间、并发症情况及手术费用等资料，并进行比较分析。结果：两组之间的年龄、性别、体重、手术总时间、术后并发症无统计学差异。缝合时间分别为（27.7±3.4）min 和（48.1±4.2）min，两组差异有显著统计学意义（P<0.001）；机器人辅助胸腔镜组手术费用较传统胸腔镜组高2 万元左右；传统胸腔镜组1 例患者膈肌下降仅一个肋间，未见活动量下降和呼吸道感染发生，予以观察。结论：机器人辅助胸腔镜膈肌折叠术治疗膈膨升的费用较传统胸腔镜高，但具有与胸腔镜手术相似的有效性，且机器人手术系统的缝合操作更顺畅。

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of robot-assisted thoracoscopic plication (RATP) for diaphragmatic eventration (DE) by comparing with the conventional thoracoscopic plication (CTP). Methods: From January 2015 to January 2020, 22 patients (15 males, 7 females) who underwent diaphragmatic plication in our hospital were selected in this study. RATP was performed on 9 patients and CTP on 13 patients. General information, suturing time, complications, cost were respectively collected and analyzed. Results: There was no difference between the two groups with respect to age, gender, weight, operative time and complications (P>0.05). No conversion to thoracotomy was found. The suturing time in the RATP group was shorter than that in the CTP group [(27.7±3.4)min Vs (48.1±4.2)min, P<0.001]. 1 patient (9.09%) experienced recurrence in the CTP group and none was found in the RATP group. Conclusion: Robot-assisted thoracoscopic plication for diaphragmatic eventration costs more than the conventional thoracoscopic plication, but it has the same effect. With better ergonomics and more flexible instruments, RATP is easier to suture in the limited space.

收稿日期：2021-02-05 录用日期：2021-03-19

Received Date: 2021-02-05 Accepted Date: 2021-03-19

通讯作者：汤绍涛，Email：tshaotao83@126.com

Corresponding Author: TANG Shaotao, Email: tshaotao83@126.com

引用格式：李帅，曹国庆，许培培，等. 机器人辅助胸腔镜与传统胸腔镜膈肌折叠术治疗膈膨升的比较研究[J]. 机器人外科学杂志（中英文），2023，4（2）：121-125.

Citation: LI S, CAO G Q, XU P P, et al. Robot-assisted versus conventional thoracoscopic plication for diaphragmatic eventration: a comparative study [J]. Chinese Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2023, 4 (2): 121-125.

[1] Mouroux J, Padovani B, Poirier N C, et al. Technique for the repair of diaphragmatic eventration[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 1996, 62(3): 905-907.

[2] Van Smith C, Jacobs J P, Burke R P. Minimally invasive diaphragm plication in an infant[J]. Ann Thorac Surg,1998, 65(3): 842-844.

[3] Meehan J J, Sandler A. Pediatric robotic surgery: a single-institutional review of the first 100 consecutive cases[J]. Surgical Endoscopy, 2008, 22(1): 177-182.

[4] Ballouhey Q, Villemagne T, Cros J, et al. Assessment of paediatric thoracic robotic surgery[J]. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg, 2015, 20(3): 300-303.

[5] Molinaro F, Angotti R, Bindi E, et al. Low weight child: can it be considered a limit of robotic surgery? Experience of two centers[J]. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2019, 29(5): 698-702.

[6] CAO G Q, TANG S T, Aubdoollah T H, et al.Laparoscopic diaphragmatic hemiplication in children with acquired diaphragmatic eventration after congenital heart surgery[J]. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Part A, 2015, 25(10): 852-857.

[7] Takazawa S, Ishimaru T, Harada K, et al. Evaluation of surgical devices using an artificial pediatric thoracic model: a comparison between robot-assisted thoracoscopic suturing versus conventional videoassisted thoracoscopic suturing[J]. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2018, 28(5): 622-627.

[8] Protyniak B, Jorden J, Farmer R.Multiquadrant robotic colorectal surgery: the da Vinci Xi vs Si comparison[J].J Robotic Surg, 2018, 12(1): 67-74.