目的：对比分析达芬奇机器人辅助下单孔和多孔腹腔镜手术治疗早期子宫内膜癌治疗的安全性及临 床价值。方法：回顾性分析 2019 年 6 月—2020 年 6 月南昌大学第一附属医院收治的早期子宫内膜癌患者 51 例，其 中达芬奇机器人辅助下单孔腹腔镜手术 23 例（机器人单孔组），多孔腹腔镜手术 28 例（机器人多孔组）。比较两 组患者的基线特征、手术出血量、手术时间、淋巴结清扫数、术中转开腹率、术中输血情况、术中脏器损伤情况、 术后排气时间、术后并发症、术后疼痛评分、总住院时间及随访患者对切口主观评价。结果：两组患者手术均顺利 完成，未出现术中并发症，均未中转开腹或普通腹腔镜手术。两组术中均未输血，无术后并发症发生。机器人单孔 组的手术时间长于机器人多孔组，术后排气时间短于机器人多孔组，术后疼痛评分低于机器人多孔组，总住院天数 低于机器人多孔组，非常满意率分别为 73.91%（17/23）和 42.86%（12/28），差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。两 组手术出血量、淋巴结清扫数目相比均无明显差异（P>0.05）。结论：达芬奇机器人辅助下单孔腹腔镜手术治疗早 期子宫内膜癌是安全可行的。相比于达芬奇机器人辅助下多孔腹腔镜手术，机器人辅助下单孔腹腔镜手术具有术后 排气时间短、住院时间短、疼痛评分低、切口美观、术后患者满意度高等优势。

Objective: To explore the safety and clinical efficacy of Da Vinci robot-assisted single-port laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer. Methods: Clinical data of 51 patients with early-stage endometrial cancer in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from June 2019 to June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who underwent Da Vinci robot-assisted single-port laparoscopic surgery were divided into the robot-assisted singleport laparoscopic group (n=23), and patients who underwent Da Vinci robot-assisted multi-port laparoscopic surgery into the robot-assisted multi-port laparoscopic group (n=28). The outcomes of the two groups were analyzed and compared, including the baseline characteristics, intraoperative blood loss, operative time, number of lymph node dissection, rate of conversion to laparotomy, intraoperative blood transfusion, intraoperative injury, postoperative exhaust time, postoperative complications, visual analogue scale (VAS), length of hospital stay and subjective evaluation of incision. Results: All surgeries were completed successfully without intraoperative or postoperative complications. No conversion to laparotomy or conventional laparoscopic surgery occurred. No blood transfusion performed during the operation. The operative time of the robot-assisted single-port laparoscopic group was longer than that of the robot-assisted multi-port laparoscopic group. The robot-assisted single-port laparoscopic group had a shorter postoperative exhaust time, lower VAS, and shorter length of hospital stay than the robotassisted multi-port laparoscopic group. 73.91% (17/23) of patients in the robot-assisted single-port laparoscopic group were very satisfied, compared with that 42.86% (12/28) of patients in the robot-assisted multi-port laparoscopic group, and all the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the amount of blood loss and the number of lymph node dissection between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: Da Vinci robot-assisted single-port laparoscopic surgery is safe and feasible in the treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer. Compared with the robot-assisted multi-port laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted single-port laparoscopic surgery has the advantages of shorter exhaust time after surgery, shorter length of hospital stay, lower VAS, better cosmetic effect of abdominal incisions, and higher patient satisfaction rate after surgery.

收稿日期：2023-06-12  录用日期：2023-08-18 

Received Date: 2023-06-12  Accepted Date: 2023-08-18 

基金项目：江西省自然科学基金项目（20192ACBL20038） 

Foundation Item: Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province (20192ACBL20038) 

通讯作者：蔡丽萍，Email：cailiping2550@163.com 

Corresponding Author: CAI Liping, Email: cailiping2550@163.com 

引用格式：张琦玲，张智，杨蕾，等 . 达芬奇机器人辅助下单孔与多孔腹腔镜手术治疗早期子宫内膜癌的疗效对比 [J]. 机器人外科 学杂志（中英文），2024，5（3）：319-326. 

Citation: ZHANG Q L, ZHANG Z, YANG L, et al. Comparison of clinical efficacy of Da Vinci robot-assisted single-port and multiport laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of early stage endometrial cancer [J]. Chinese Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2024, 5(3): 319-326.

[1] Siegel R L, Miller K D, Jemal A, et al. Cancer statistics, 2019[J]. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2019, 69(1): 7-34. 

[2] 马敬丽 , 崔冬青 , 程桂丽 , 等 . 开腹手术与腹腔镜 手术治疗早期子宫内膜癌的临床效果观察 [J]. 癌症 进展 , 2020, 18(3): 307-310. 

[3] Lee J, Kim K, Lee Y S, et al. Treatment preferences for routine lymphadenectomy versus no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial cancer[J]. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2017, 24(5): 1-7. 

[4] 杨颖 . 腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗早期子宫内膜癌的临 床疗效分析 [J]. 现代肿瘤医学 , 2017, 25(6): 939-941. 

[5] 高晨曦 , 李丰鑫 , 田东立 , 等 . 达芬奇机器人辅助下单孔腹腔镜手术在妇科领域的应用和发展前景 [J]. 实用妇产科杂志 , 2020, 36(06): 436-439. 

[6] Stewart K I, Fader A N. New Developments in minimally invasive gynecologic oncology surgery[J]. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2017, 60(2): 330-348. 

[7] Shafer A, Boggess J F. Robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging and radical hysterectomy with the da Vinci surgical system[J]. Gynecologic oncology, 2008, 111(2-supp-S): S18-S23. 

[8] Brubaker L, Shull B. EGGS for patient-centered outcomes[J]. International Urogynecology Journal, 2005, 16(3): 171-173. 

[9] Herling S F, Møller A M, Palle C, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy for women with endometrial cancer[J]. Danish Medical Journal, 2017, 64(3): A5343. 

[10] Ind T, Alex Laios A, Hacking M, et al. A comparison of operative outcomes between standard and robotic laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 2017, 13(4): e1851. 

[11] Matanes E, Lauterbach R, Boulus S, et al. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology: a systematic review[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.10.006. 

[12] 顾圆圆 , 周冠楠 , 丁景新 , 等 . 机器人单孔腹腔镜 在妇科手术中应用进展 [J]. 中国临床医学 , 2020, 27(1): 136-139. 

[13] Anger J T, Mueller E R, Tarney C, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2014, 123(1): 5-12. 

[14] Poon M W, Jiang D, Qin P, et al. Inhibition of NUCKS facilitates corneal recovery following alkali burn[J]. Scientific Reports, 2017. DOI: 10.1038/srep41224. 

[15] Moukarzel L A, Sinno A K, Fader A N, et al. Comparing single-site and multiport robotic hysterectomy with sentinel lymph node mapping for endometrial cancer: surgical outcomes and cost analysis[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2017, 24(6): 977-983. 

[16] Moulton L, Jernigan A M, Carr C, et al. Single-port laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology: seven years of experience at a single institution[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2017, 217(5): 610-611. 

[17] Akdemir A, Zeybek B, Ozgurel B, et al. Learning curve analysis of intracorporeal cuff suturing during robotic single-site total hysterectomy[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2015, 22(3): 384-389. 

[18] Chang L, Satava R M, Pellegrini C A, et al. Robotic surgery: identifying the learning curve through objective measurement of skill[J]. Surg Endosc, 2003, 17(11): 1744-1748. 

[19] Kim Y W, Park B J, Ro D Y, et al. Single-port laparoscopic myomectomy using a new single-port transumbilical morcellation system: initial clinical study[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2010, 17(5): 587-592. 

[20] Park J Y, Kim D Y, Kim S H, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site compared with conventional laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy for ovarian endometrioma[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2015, 22(5): 813-819. 

[21] Bush A J, Morris S N, Millham F H, et al. Women’s preferences for minimally invasive incisions[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2011, 18(5): 640-643. 

[22] Grochola L F, Soll C, Zehnder A, et al. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy: results of a randomized controlled trial[J]. Surg Endosc, 2019, 33(5): 1482-1490.