机器人手术治疗胃癌的临床新进展
New Clinical Progress in the Treatment of Gastric Cancer by Robotic Surgery
DOI: 10.12677/ACM.2023.1361331, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 259  浏览: 455  科研立项经费支持
作者: 马于祺:甘肃中医药大学第一临床医学院,甘肃 兰州;詹渭鹏, 张文涛, 马云涛*:甘肃省人民医院普外一科,甘肃 兰州
关键词: 胃癌机器人腹腔镜胃切除手术Gastric Cancer Robot Laparoscope Gastric Resection Surgery
摘要: 目前针对胃癌患者的外科手术治疗主要有开腹手术(open gastrectomy, OG),腹腔镜下胃癌切除术(Laparoscopic gastrectomy, LG),以及机器人胃切除(robotic gastrectomy, RG)。随着外科微创技术的快速发展,开腹手术相对于微创手术有更多的侵入性,伤口疼痛的感受更强,较长恢复排便功能和出院时间等。而在微创技术中,腹腔镜的二维图像应用、不可预防的生理性震颤和触觉下降以及面对一些复杂患者时强加给外科医生不舒服的姿势等情况都极大影响了外科医生操作的准确性与便捷性。因此,开发了机器人系统来解决此类问题。国内外多项研究表明,机器人胃切除术是安全可行的,且短期和长期结果与腹腔镜胃切除术相似。由于5G技术的出现,为机器人平台的发展带来了新的热情,同时使得全智能机器人手术成为可能。此篇文章将主要从手术模式和其他优势阐述机器人手术的临床进展。
Abstract: Currently, Laparoscopic gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), and robotic gastrectomy (RG) are laparoscopic surgical treatments for patients with gastric cancer. Due to the rapid devel-opment of surgical minimally invasive technology, compared with minimally invasive procedure, open surgery is more invasive, with stronger feelings of wound pain, longer recovery of defecation function and discharge time. In minimally invasive technology, the application of two-dimensional images of laparoscopy, unpredictable physiological tremors and tactile decline, as well as imposing uncomfortable postures on surgeons when facing complex patients, all greatly affect the accuracy and convenience of surgeons’ operations. Therefore, robotic systems have been developed to solve such problems. The development of the robotic platform has become enthusiastic due to its im-proved ergonomic stability, high-definition 3D visualization of the surgical area, and a greater range of instrument motion. A number of domestic and international studies have shown that robotic gastrectomy is safe and feasible, and the short-term and long-term results are similar to laparo-scopic gastrectomy. Due to the development of 5G technology, robotic platforms have brought new enthusiasm and made fully intelligent robotic surgery possible. This article will mainly explain ro-botic surgery’s clinical progress from the surgical mode perspective and other advantages.
文章引用:马于祺, 詹渭鹏, 张文涛, 马云涛. 机器人手术治疗胃癌的临床新进展[J]. 临床医学进展, 2023, 13(6): 9508-9514. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2023.1361331

1. 引言

《2020年全球癌症统计报告:全球185个国家36种癌症发病率和死亡率的估计》 [1] 中胃癌居全球癌症发病谱的第五位,死因谱第四位,2020年全球胃癌新发病人数超过108万,其死亡人数更是超过76万。在中国,胃癌患者人数仍维持在第三位,死因谱第三位。患病人数的增长导致我国癌症负担巨大增幅。

外科微创技术的快速发展,使得胃癌手术侵入性减少,患者的疼痛感受减弱,恢复排便功能和出院时间缩短等 [2] 。而机器人手术旨在为外科医生提供高分辨率的三维成像,缓解手腕运动和震颤过滤等优势 [3] [4] 。在许多研究报告中表明 [5] [6] ,机器人胃切除术是安全可行的。同时自机器人胃切除术采用以来,在胃癌外科治疗中所占的比例随着时间的推移而增加。

2. 手术模式

2.1. 机器人治疗胃癌常规手术方式“4 + 1”模式

采用4 + 1模式时,患者取仰卧位,一个套管放置于肚脐正下方的中线,用作摄像头端口,当气腹达到12 mmhg后,将手术台倾斜至15度使患者处于反向特伦德伦伯卧位(reverse Trendelenburg position)。在确定好端口最佳位置后,在摄像头可视化下插入四个额外端口:三个用于机器人仪器的8 mm端口和一个12 mm辅助端口。同时可以根据外科医生喜好,进行减少端口的RG。根据肿瘤的部位确定胃切除的范围。

2.2. 达芬奇机器人“3 + 1”模式

目前甘肃省普通外科临床医学中心创新性的开展达芬奇机器人“3 + 1”模式,目的是通过减少对患者的手术伤害来期望更好的短期手术结果。使用此方法相比常规手术术后疼痛更轻,明显缓解患者围手术心理压力,实现患者加速康复 [7] 。有研究表明 [8] ,减少端口或单切口LG用以减少手术创伤并实现更快的恢复。在术后疼痛,手术质量和短期结果方面,减少端口机器人胃切除术和D2淋巴结清结果相当 [9] 。

2.3. 达芬奇RG系统“3 + 2”模式

甘肃省人民医院创造了达芬奇RG系统“3 + 2”模式(三个机械臂 + 两个助手) [10] [11] [12] 。选取100例远端胃癌根治术患者使用此方法。此方法能帮助临床医师更快更好的熟悉该项技术,缩短了外科手术学习曲线。减少了一个机械臂以及不断切换器械所带来的费用。同时在胃癌根治性术中,对于肥胖和淋巴结转移的患者,运用达芬奇机器人“3 + 2”术式 [13] ,助手使用吸引器,可以更好的暴露手术视野,有利于第二助手学习和第一助手主导手术的作用,同时也可缩短手术时间。

2.4. 单孔机器人手术模式

单孔机器人手术,使用位于脐带部位的单个套管针进行。这种脐带切口也可用于引入内吻合器和标本提取。单孔机器人手术模式在胃癌的治疗中可减少患者术后的疼痛以及并发症,相对于其他术式术后更为美观,但此术式需从同一孔置入不同器械,易导致器械间互相干扰从而引起操作难度增加,由于手术部位相对局限,各脏器牵引存在一定的难度,往往导致新的并发症 [14] 。Hao Cui等人报道了第一个达芬奇sp进行胃癌更治术的患者 [15] ,手术成功切除了胃和D2淋巴结解剖。同时通过一项meta分析可知单切口胃切除术在治疗胃癌技术上是安全可行的 [16] 。

3. 机器人治疗胃癌的优点

3.1. 机器人手术与腹腔镜,开放手术的区别

LG于1980年代推出,已被广泛接受,目前已成为许多普通外科手术侵入性微创手术(MIS)的主流。一项包括4576名患者在内的16个前瞻性观察性研究被纳入meta分析 [16] ,与LG相比,RG手术时间更长,失血量更少,首次术后排气时间更短。而机器人手术时间延长,源于对接和脱离机器所需要额外时间。有meta分析显示RG手术时间延长,可能预示气腹暴露时间延长和相关的麻醉时间增加,这将对术后结果产生负面影响 [17] 。一项关于RG和LG的重要比较研究表明 [18] ,对于内脏脂肪型肥胖患者,RG在降低并发症风险和长期生存方面优于LG [19] 。使用超声手术刀的RG可能是LG的可行替代方案,使GC手术后腹腔内感染发生率有所改善 [20] 。有研究中发现 [21] ,混合机器人和腹腔镜胃切除治疗的患者相比胰上LN切除和术后炎症方面优于常规腹腔镜治疗患者。

RG和LG以及OG比较,治疗分级评价将RG作为30天死亡率(28.5%)、吻合口漏(24.4%)、术后严重并发症(18.7%)和整体并发症(24.1%)概率最低的手术方法 [22] [23] 。这些结果可能与机械臂有关,通过避免对组织的过度牵引,对血管的意外伤害减少患者围手术期并发症。而这些并发症的差异对患者的康复和住院时间的缩短有重要的意义。虽然RG降低了整体术后并发症但RG并不能降低腹腔内感染的发生 [24] 。回顾性分析14,075例胃癌切除术发现 [25] ,与MIS相比,开腹手术远端胃切除术后的吻合口漏明显更频繁。但在一项单研究中 [26] ,开放手术与微创手术在总体生存率(OS)和疾病特异性生存率(DSS)上无明显差异。通过对于学习曲线的研究发现 [27] [28] ,LG 学习曲线陡峭,RG学习曲线较浅,这表明机器人辅助手术更易适应。

3.2. 单孔机器人手术与常规机器人手术的区别

Kawamura和Kunisaki等人发现 [29] ,与传统腹腔镜方法相比,单孔机器人手术组的手术时间有统计学上显著的延长。一项meta分析中 [30] ,单孔或正常机器人手术与腹腔镜相比,具有较低的术后住院时间,相当的手术时间,术中出血量,术后早期并发症发生率和收获的淋巴结数目。同时对单孔机器人胃癌切除术和食管空肠吻合术的短期结果进行讨论 [31] ,显示出可接受的手术结果,这表明单孔机器人胃切除术中行食管空肠吻合术是可行并且安全的。单孔机器人手术的美容效果往往对于年轻女性具有较多的吸引力,对于BMI较低的年轻女性,可以考虑使用单孔机器人手术方式。同时与常规手术相比,单孔手术所需人力更少,某些情况下,使得该程序更具有成本效益。

3.3. 机器人手术优势

机器人技术有望提高胃手术的质量,特别是在胰上、幽门下和脾门区域的精确淋巴结切除方面。一项连续2000名患者单一高容量中心研究发现 [32] ,使用机器人技术使手术视野更为开阔,使外科医生能够轻松的接近脾血管的深部和狭窄区域,同时由于机械臂更稳定,从而显着减少了外科医生的肌肉骨骼疲劳和生理性震颤,这有助于在淋巴清扫过程中进行精细操作,粘连松解过程中避免邻近器官损伤。在机器人淋巴结清扫实验中 [33] ,RG可以提高手术的质量,简化复杂的脾门淋巴结清扫术。而对于第二站淋巴结的充分清扫,往往对胃癌患者的生存预后有重要意义 [34] 。对于胰腺上缘区域淋巴结清扫是胃D2淋巴结清扫中的重要环节,一项胃癌N0.11P后方淋巴结清扫实验中 [35] ,通过生存分析比较显示,No.11p后方淋巴结阳性组3年总生存率为17.9%,显著差于阴性组的75.1%。刘宏斌等人的研究中 [36] ,RG可以缩短淋巴结清扫术的学习时间,并使外科医生比LG更容易进行D2 LN解剖。一项倾向评分匹配分析表明 [37] ,RG对晚期胃癌比早期胃癌更具优势。这表现在较低的失血量,切除的淋巴结数量更多,尤其是胰腺上缘切除的淋巴结数量更多。

一项多机构研究表明 [38] ,术后30天,RG的发病(c-d级 ≥ IIIa)为2.45% (8/326)。发病率的降低,可以降低总医疗费用,减少术后住院时间,改善患者的生活质量。一项随机对照实验中表明 [39] ,RG具有较低的发病率、更快的恢复、较轻的炎症反应和改善的LN切除数量。以至于RG组术后恢复更快,可以早期开始辅助化疗。数据表明,如果RG的每次手术成本降低到与LG相同的数量,RG可能会显示出更高的成本效益。研究表明 [40] ,RG术后发病率为5.2%~24.1%。由于老年患者功能储备减少和合并症增加,通常被认为是腹部大手术的高危人群。与非老年患者相比,患者(年龄 ≥ 70岁)的发病率更高。当胃癌是位于胃中部1/3的早期胃癌时,可行保留幽门和迷走神经胃切除术,将微创技术和功能保留相结合,具有减少并发症,早恢复和改善患者术后生活质量等优势 [41] 。

4. 总结与展望

目前达芬奇RG系统存在购置难、使用成本高和缺乏触觉反馈等问题限制了其推广和普及 [42] 。随着第五代移动通信技术的出现,RG手术将得到新的发展。5G以其高速率、低延迟、大容量的特点,推动了远程医疗领域的高速发展 [43] [44] 。5G移动通信将实现基于视频与力反馈的远程操控技术的应用,如远程手术,远程检查操作等 [45] 。2019年国内两位术者成功完成全球首例多点协助5G远程机器人手术实验,使优质资源实现最大化利用 [46] 。同时机器人手术有利于捕捉和分析机械臂的运动轨迹,使得全智能机器人手术成为可能。随着国产机器人技术的愈发成熟,5G和机器人技术结合已经成为当下微创发展的又一趋势 [47] 。

基金项目

甘肃省科技计划项目(22JR5RA663);甘肃省人民医院院内科研基金项目(22GSSYC-15)。

参考文献

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] 刘宗超, 李哲轩, 张阳, 等. 2020全球癌症统计报告解读[J]. 肿瘤综合治疗电子杂志, 2021, 7(2): 1-14.
[2] Lu, H., Han, T., Li, F., et al. (2022) Global Trends and Hotspots in Research of Robotic Surgery in Oncology: A Biblio-metric and Visual Analysis from 2002 to 2021. Frontiers in Oncology, 12, Article ID: 1055118.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.1055118
[3] Zizzo, M., Zanelli, M., Sanguedolce, F., et al. (2022) Robotic ver-sus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review. Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 58, Article No. 834.
https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58060834
[4] 周岩冰. 机器人胃癌根治术相关问题[J]. 腹部外科, 2022, 35(1): 5-11+30.
[5] Nishi, M., Shimada, M., Yoshikawa, K., et al. (2022) Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 29, 3887-3895.
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-11203-7
[6] Li, Z.-Y., et al. (2021) Morbidity and Short-Term Surgical Out-comes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Large Cohort Study. Surgical Endos-copy, 35, 3572-3583.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07820-0
[7] 郭进, 詹渭鹏, 狐鸣, 等. 达芬奇机器人“3 + 1”模式在进展期远端胃癌根治术中的临床应用[J]. 机器人外科学杂志(中英文), 2022, 3(5): 406-413.
[8] Wang, C.Y., Chen, Y.H. and Huang, T.S. (2022) Reduced-Port Robotic Radical Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Single-Institute Experi-ence. BMC Surgery, 22, Article No. 198.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01645-5
[9] Seo, W.J., Son, T., Shin, H., et al. (2020) Reduced-Port Totally Robotic Distal Subtotal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: 100 Consecutive Cases in Comparison with Conventional Robotic and Laparoscopic Distal Subtotal Gastrectomy. Scientific Reports, 10, Article No. 16015.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73118-9
[10] 黄显斌, 狐鸣, 蔡辉, 等. 程序化达芬奇机器人“3 + 2”模式“七步法”远端胃癌根治术[J]. 中国肿瘤临床, 2022, 49(3): 124-128.
[11] Hu, M., Han, C., Guo, T., et al. (2020) Application of da Vinci Robot with the “3  + 2” Mode in Radical Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer. Medicine, 99, e22988.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000022988
[12] 苗长丰, 詹渭鹏, 张文涛, 等. 机器人辅助胃癌根治术的安全性及可行性分析[J]. 机器人外科学杂志(中英文), 2021, 2(3): 162-169.
[13] 狐鸣, 马世勋, 杨婧, 等. 吸引器在达芬奇机器人“3 + 2”辅助胃癌根治术中的应用体会[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 14(5): 260-264.
[14] 王淳, 燕速. 减孔腹腔镜胃癌根治术的现状及展望[J]. 临床医学研究与实践, 2021, 6(10): 196-198.
[15] Cui, H., Cui, J.X., Zhang, K.C., et al. (2022) Can a Single-Port Robot Be Safely Used for Robotic Total Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer? First Experience Using the da Vinci SP Platform. Gastroenterology Report, 10, goac023.
https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/goac023
[16] Lin, L., Xu, Q., Xu, F., et al. (2022) Comparison of Short-Term Sur-gical Outcomes and Post-Operative Recovery between Single-Incision and Multi-Port Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer. Journal of Minimal Access Surgery, 18, 578-584.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.jmas_219_21
[17] Marano, L., Fusario, D., Savelli, V., et al. (2021) Robotic versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Updates in Surgery, 73, 1673-1689.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-021-01059-7
[18] Berlth, F., Knospe, L., Jansen-Winkeln, B., et al. (2021) Status of Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy: Current Advancements: Robotic Surgery and Intraoperative Imaging for Gastric Cancer. Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 92, 528-534.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-021-01391-z
[19] Hikage, M., Fujiya, K., Waki, Y., et al. (2022) Advantages of a Robotic Approach Compared with Laparoscopy Gastrectomy for Patients with High Visceral Fat Area. Surgical Endos-copy, 36, 6181-6193.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09178-x
[20] Kubo, N., Sakurai, K., Tamamori, Y., et al. (2022) Less Severe Intra-Abdominal Infections in Robotic Surgery for Gastric Cancer Compared with Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 29, 3922-3933.
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-11410-w
[21] Kim, S.J., Jeon, C.H., Jung, Y.J., et al. (2021) Hybrid Robotic and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Comparison with Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy. Journal of Gastric Cancer, 21, 308-318.
https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2021.21.e30
[22] Aiolfi, A., Lombardo, F., Matsushima, K., et al. (2021) Systematic Review and Updated Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Open, Laparoscopic-Assisted, and Robotic Distal Gastrectomy for Early and Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer. Surgery, 170, 942-951.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2021.04.014
[23] Kamarajah, S.K., Griffiths, E.A., Phillips, A.W., et al. (2022) Ro-botic Techniques in Esophagogastric Cancer Surgery: An Assessment of Short- and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes. An-nals of Surgical Oncology, 29, 2812-2825.
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-11082-y
[24] Ojima, T., Nakamura, M., Hayata, K., et al. (2021) Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic Gastrectomy vs Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Clini-cal Trial. JAMA Surgery, 156, 954-963.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2021.3182
[25] Carboni, F., Valle, M., et al. (2021) Incidence and Treatment Outcomes of Leakage after Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Experience of 14,075 Patients from a Large Volume Centre. European Journal of Surgical Oncology: The Journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British As-sociation of Surgical Oncology, 47, 2468-2469.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2021.06.002
[26] Nakauchi, M., Vos, E., Janjigian, Y.Y., et al. (2021) Comparison of Long- and Short-Term Outcomes in 845 Open and Minimally Invasive Gastrectomies for Gastric Cancer in the United States. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 28, 3532-3544.
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-09798-y
[27] Bobo, Z., Xin, W., Jiang, L., et al. (2019) Robotic Gastrectomy versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Prospective Ob-servational Studies. Surgical Endoscopy, 33, 1033-1048.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-06648-z
[28] Mala, T., Førland, D., Skagemo, C., et al. (2022) Early Experi-ence with Total Robotic D2 Gastrectomy in a Low Incidence Region: Surgical Perspectives. BMC Surgery, 22, Article No. 137.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01576-1
[29] Kawamura, H., Tanioka, T., Shibuya, K., et al. (2013) Comparison of the Invasiveness between Reduced-Port Laparoscopy-Assisted Distal Gastrectomy and Conventional Laparoscopy-Assisted Distal Gastrectomy. International Surgery, 98, 247-253.
https://doi.org/10.9738/INTSURG-D-12-00025
[30] Alarcón, I., Yang, T., Balla, A., et al. (2022) Single/Reduced Port Surgery vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies: MITAT: Official Journal of the Society for Minimally Invasive Therapy, 31, 515-524.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2021.1884571
[31] Choi, S., Son, T., Song, J.H., et al. (2021) Intracorporeal Esophagojejunostomy during Reduced-Port Totally Robotic Gastrectomy for Proximal Gastric Cancer: A Novel Applica-tion of the Single-Site(®) plus 2-Port System. Journal of Gastric Cancer, 21, 132-141.
https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2021.21.e16
[32] Choi, S., Song, J.H., Lee, S., et al. (2022) Trends in Clinical Out-comes and Long-Term Survival after Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Single High-Volume Center Experience of Consecutive 2000 Patients. Gastric Cancer: Official Journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 25, 275-286.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-021-01231-3
[33] Chen, Q.Y., Zhong, Q., Zheng, C.H., et al. (2019) Robotic Spleen-Preserving Splenic Hilar Lymphadenectomy for Advanced Proximal Gastric Cancer: A Feasible and Simplified Procedure. Surgical Oncology, 28, 67-68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2018.11.014
[34] 谢绍辉, 石彦, 龙渡, 等. 机器人胃癌根治性全胃切除术中长期疗效及预后因素分析[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2020, 23(4): 357-363.
[35] Zhang, Z.Q., Zhang, W.H., Long, X.Y., et al. (2022) Clinical Significance of No.11p Posterior Lymph Nodes Dissection in Gastric Cancer Surgery. Chi-nese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 25, 342-347.
[36] Liu, H.B., Wang, W.J., Li, H.T., et al. (2018) Robotic ver-sus Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study. International Journal of Surgery (London, England), 55, 15-23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.05.015
[37] Tian, Y., Cao, S., Kong, Y., et al. (2022) Short- and Long-Term Comparison of Robotic and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer by the Same Surgical Team: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis. Surgical Endoscopy, 36, 185-195.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08253-5
[38] Uyama, I., Suda, K., Nakauchi, M., et al. (2019) Clinical Ad-vantages of Robotic Gastrectomy for Clinical Stage I/II Gastric Cancer: A Multi-Institutional Prospective Single-Arm Study. Gastric Cancer: Official Journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Can-cer Association, 22, 377-385.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-018-00906-8
[39] Lu, J., Zheng, C.H., Xu, B.B., et al. (2021) Assessment of Ro-botic versus Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Annals of Surgery, 273, 858-867.
https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004466
[40] Li, Z.Y., Zhao, Y.L., Qian, F., et al. (2021) Incidence and Risk Factors of Postoperative Complications after Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: An Analysis of 817 Cases Based on 10-Year Experience in A Large-Scale Center. Surgical Endoscopy, 35, 7034-7041.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08218-8
[41] Nunobe, S., Sasako, M., Saka, M., et al. (2007) Symptom Eval-uation of Long-Term Postoperative Outcomes after Pylorus-Preserving Gastrectomy for Early Gastric Cancer. Gastric Cancer: Official Journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 10, 167-172.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-007-0434-7
[42] Yu, P.W. and Li, Z.Y. (2020) Current Situation and Reflection on the Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery in China. Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 23, 332-335.
[43] 武玉多, 蔡月日, 翟羿, 等. 5G+人工智能在外科手术过程中的应用探讨[J]. 中国数字医学, 2022, 17(6): 6-9.
[44] 贾崧淏, 贡鸣, 武玉多, 等. 远程医疗在外科领域的研究现况概述[J]. 中国循证心血管医学杂志, 2022, 14(10): 1271-1272+1276.
[45] 刘一煊, 马淑贞, 郭君. 5G为智慧医疗插上翅膀[J]. 经济, 2022(2): 116-117.
[46] 世界首例多点协同5G远程多学科机器人手术试验成功[J]. 信息系统工程, 2019(9): 2.
[47] 郑民华, 马君俊. 微创外科相关科技创新热点及其在胃肠外科中的应用[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2021, 20(S1): 14-17.