切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华移植杂志(电子版) ›› 2022, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (05) : 285 -291. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3903.2022.05.004

论著

改良手助后腹腔镜活体供肾切取术学习曲线研究
尚利敏1, 郑蒙蒙1, 王志鹏1, 杨洋1, 孙雯1, 张磊1, 朱一辰1,()   
  1. 1. 100050 首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院泌尿外科
  • 收稿日期:2022-09-06 出版日期:2022-10-25
  • 通信作者: 朱一辰
  • 基金资助:
    北京市医管中心"青苗计划"(QML20180104)

Learning curve of modified hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy

Limin Shang1, Mengmeng Zheng1, Zhipeng Wang1, Yang Yang1, Wen Sun1, Lei Zhang1, Yichen Zhu1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Urology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
  • Received:2022-09-06 Published:2022-10-25
  • Corresponding author: Yichen Zhu
引用本文:

尚利敏, 郑蒙蒙, 王志鹏, 杨洋, 孙雯, 张磊, 朱一辰. 改良手助后腹腔镜活体供肾切取术学习曲线研究[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(05): 285-291.

Limin Shang, Mengmeng Zheng, Zhipeng Wang, Yang Yang, Wen Sun, Lei Zhang, Yichen Zhu. Learning curve of modified hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy[J]. Chinese Journal of Transplantation(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(05): 285-291.

目的

探讨改良手助后腹腔镜活体供肾切取术(HARPLDN)的学习曲线。

方法

回顾性分析首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院2015年5月至2021年2月81例行改良HARPLDN供者临床资料,所有手术均由同一名腹腔镜手术经验丰富的泌尿外科医师主刀。收集供者入院时的基本信息和围手术期相关资料。术后并发症按改良的Clavien系统分型进行分级。通过移动平均法(MAM)定性分析改良HARPLDN学习过程中手术时间(OT)随例数的变化趋势。使用累积和分析法(CUSUM)定量评估学习曲线,依照CUSUM曲线顶点对应的横坐标数值将81例供者划分为第1阶段的初始学习阶段组以及第2阶段的掌握阶段组。使用Kolmogorov-Smirnov检验明确数据是否符合正态分布,组间计量资料采用独立样本t检验或Mann-Whitney U检验进行比较,计数资料采用卡方检验或Fisher确切概率法比较,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。

结果

MAM拟合的学习曲线提示,随着改良HARPLDN手术例数的累积,OT有下降的趋势;约完成至40例后,OT明显缩短,此后波动在150 min上下。采用CUSUM拟合学习曲线,第1~41例的CUSUM值处于快速上升阶段,即学习阶段组(n=41),第41例的CUSUM值达到顶点,此后CUSUM值开始下降,第42~81例纳入掌握阶段组(n=40)。综合分析手术例数-CUSUM学习曲线,可得到拟合曲线y=-166.163+4.6951×x+0.228×x2-0.004×x3,(R2=0.679,P<0.001)。学习阶段组供者腹部手术史、术前血清肌酐、OT、热缺血时间、术中出血量和住院时间分别为3例、(72±12)μmol/L、(166±36)min、120 s(90~300 s)、50 mL(10~300 mL)和(12.7±2.4)d,掌握阶段组分别为10例、(62±12)μmol/L、(149±33)min、90 s(60~180 s)、50 mL(20~200 mL)和(12.4±3.5)d,差异均有统计学意义(χ2=4.699,t=3.750、2.190和0.503,Z=-4.276和-2.569,P均<0.05);其余临床资料差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。

结论

改良HARPLDN是一种安全、有效的供肾切取术式。对于具有丰富腹腔镜手术经验的泌尿外科医师来说,约41例即可完成HARPLDN的初始学习阶段。

Objective

To explore the learning curve of modified hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy (HARPLDN).

Methods

The clinical data of 81 consecutive donors who underwent modified HARPLDN from May 2015 to February 2021 were retrospectively evaluated. All procedures were performed by an experienced urologist in laparoscopic surgery. Baseline demographic, laboratory, and clinical perioperative data of the donors were collected. Postoperative complications were classified according to the modified Clavien classification system. The trend was analyzed qualitatively in the operation time (OT) varied with the number of cases during the learning process of modified HARPLDN, which is obtained by the moving average method (MAM). Then the learning curve was quantitatively evaluated by the cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM). According to the x-coordinate corresponding to the vertex of the CUSUM curve, 81 donors were divided into two phases, namely the initial learning phase group and the mastery phase group. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to confirm whether the data were normal distribution. To compare the initial learning phase group and the mastery phase group, the continuous variables were analyzed with an independent samples t-test or Mann-Whitney U test, and the categorical variables were analyzed with chi-square test or Fisher′s exact test. Statistical significance was defined as P value <0.05.

Results

According to the MAM learning curve, the OT decreased as the number of modified HARPLDN cases increased. After about 40 cases, OT was significantly shortened and thereafter fluctuated around 150 min. According to the CUSUM curve, the CUSUM value increased rapidly in the first 40 donors and reached the peak at the 41st case, the first 41 cases were brought into the initial learning phase group (n=41), and then started to decline. The remain cases were brought into the mastery phase group (n=40). The cases of surgeries-CUSUM learning curve in chronological order was comprehensively analyzed, and the following equation was obtained: y=-166.163+ 4.6951×x+ 0.228×x2-0.004×x3; the highest R2 value was 0.679, and P<0.001. In the initial learning phase group, the history of abdominal operation, preoperative serum creatinine, OT, warm ischemia time, intraoperative blood loss and length of stay were 3 cases, (72±12) μmol/L, (166±36) min, 120 s (90-300 s), 50 mL(10-300 mL) and (12.7±2.4) d, respectively; While in the mastery phase group were 10 cases, (62±12) μmol/L, (149±33) min, 90 s(60-180 s), 50 mL(20-200 mL) and (12.4±3.5) d. The differences were statistically significant (χ2=4.699, t=3.750, 2.190 and 0.503, Z=-4.276 and -2.569, all P<0.05). There were no significant differences between the two phases in terms of other aspects (all P>0.05).

Conclusions

The modified HARPLDN used in our hospital is a safe and effective method for kidney transplantation. For urologists with rich experience in laparoscopic surgery, 41 cases of the surgery were needed to finish the initial learning phase of the modified HARPLDN.

图1 改良手助后腹腔镜活体供肾切取术重要步骤图解(以左侧供肾为例)注:a.供者取右侧卧位,1为腹腔镜孔,2和3为主刀操作孔,4为助手孔;b.采用剪刀锐性分离肾周脂肪囊无血管区;c.沿肌纤维走形方向钝性分离肌层,其中1为腹外斜肌,2为腹内斜肌,3为腹横肌;d.无需手助Port的手助方式;e.供肾"零点"穿刺活检;f.手辅助离断肾血管
图2 移动平均法拟合的81例活体肾移植供者改良手助后腹腔镜活体供肾切取术学习趋势图
图3 CUSUM拟合的81例活体肾移植供者改良手助后腹腔镜活体供肾切取术学习趋势图注:CUSUM.累计和分析法
表1 学习阶段和掌握阶段组活体肾移植供者临床资料比较
1
Segev DL, Muzaale AD, Caffo BS, et al. Perioperative mortality and long-term survival following live kidney donation[J]. JAMA, 2010, 303(10): 959-966.
2
Bergman S, Feldman LS, Anidjar M, et al. " First, do no harm" :monitoring outcomes during the transition from open to laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in a Canadian centre[J]. Can J Surg, 2008, 51(2): 103-110.
3
Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ, Moore RG, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy[J]. Transplantation, 1995, 60(9): 1047-1049.
4
Andersen MH, Mathisen L, Oyen O, et al. Postoperative pain and convalescence in living kidney donors-laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy: a randomized study[J]. Am J Transplant, 2006, 6(6): 1438-1443.
5
Nicholson ML, Kaushik M, Lewis GRR, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy[J]. Br J Surg, 2010, 97(1): 21-28.
6
Simforoosh N, Basiri A, Shakhssalim N, et al. Long-term graft function in a randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy[J]. Exp Clin Transplant, 2012, 10(5): 428-432.
7
Fonouni H, Mehrabi A, Golriz M, et al. Comparison of the laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy: an overview of surgical complications and outcome[J]. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2014, 399(5): 543-551.
8
Zhu YC, Lin J, Guo YW, et al. Modified hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy with a mini-open muscle splitting gibson incision[J]. Urol Int, 2016, 97(2): 186-194.
9
田野,张磊,解泽林,等. 经腹膜后入路腹腔镜活体供肾切取技术的改良及效果观察[J]. 中华器官移植杂志2012, 33(10): 580-583.
10
Kocak B, Koffron AJ, Baker TB, et al. Proposed classification of complications after live donor nephrectomy[J]. Urology, 2006, 67(5): 927-931.
11
Greco F, Hoda MR, Alcaraz A, et al. Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: analysis of the existing literature[J]. Eur Urol, 2010, 58(4): 498-509.
12
Ungbhakorn P, Kongchareonsombat W, Leenanupan C, et al. Comparative outcomes of open nephrectomy, hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy, and full laparoscopic nephrectomy for living donors[J]. Transplant Proc, 2012, 44(1): 22-25.
13
Yang SC, Lee DH, Rha KH, et al. Retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy: two cases[J]. Transplant Proc, 1994, 26(4): 2409.
14
Ng ZQ, Musk G, Rea A, et al. Transition from laparoscopic to retroperitoneoscopic approach for live donor nephrectomy[J]. Surg Endosc, 2018, 32(6): 2793-2799.
15
Wolf JS, Tchetgen MB, Merion RM. Hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy[J]. Urology, 1998, 52(5): 885-887.
16
Wadström J, Lindström P. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: initial 10 cases[J]. Transplantation, 2002, 73(11): 1839-1840.
17
Wahba R, Kleinert R, Hellmich M, et al. Optimizing a living kidney donation program: transition to hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy and introduction of a passive polarizing three-dimensional display system[J]. Surg Endosc, 2017, 31(6): 2577-2585.
18
Capolicchio JP, Feifer A, Plante MK, et al. Retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy: initial experience with a unique hand-assisted approach[J]. Clin Transplant, 2011, 25(3): 352-359.
19
Wadström J, Biglarnia A, Gjertsen H, et al. Introducing hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: learning curves and development based on 413 consecutive cases in four centers[J]. Transplantation, 2011, 91(4): 462-469.
20
Elmaraezy A, Abushouk AI, Kamel M, et al. Should hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy replace the standard laparoscopic technique for living donor nephrectomy? A meta-analysis[J]. Int J Surg, 2017, 40: 83-90.
21
Gavriilidis P, Papalois V. Retroperitoneoscopic standard or hand-assisted versus laparoscopic standard or hand-assisted donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and the first network meta-analysis[J]. J Clin Med Res, 2020, 12(11): 740-746.
22
Chin EH, Hazzan D, Herron DM, et al. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: intraoperative safety, immediate morbidity, and delayed complications with 500 cases[J]. Surg Endosc, 2007, 21(4): 521-526.
23
Pal BC, Modi PR, Rizvi SJ, et al. The learning curve of pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy[J]. Int J Organ Transplant Med, 2017, 8(4): 180-185.
24
Nakajima I, Iwadoh K, Koyama I, et al. Nine-yr experience of 700 hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomies in Japan[J]. Clin Transplant, 2012, 26(5): 797-807.
25
Tae BS, Balpukov U, Kim HH, et al. Evaluation of the learning curve of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy[J]. Ann Transplant, 2018, 23: 546-553.
26
Zhu D, Hong P, Zhu J, et al. Cumulative sum analysis of the learning curve for modified retroperitoneoscopic living-donor nephrectomy[J]. Urol Int, 2018, 101(4): 425-436.
27
Dagnæs-Hansen J, Kristensen GH, Stroomberg HV, et al. Surgical approaches and outcomes in living donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Eur Urol Focus, 2022, 8(6): 1795-1801.
[1] 黄泽, 张梓榆, 杨青宇, 赖声清, 李海燕. 乳腺腔镜手术临床应用现状及训练路径[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 122-125.
[2] 梁加亮, 王永永, 张建勇, 赵代伟, 王南鹏, 李翼. 经口腔前庭入路单侧甲状腺癌手术的学习曲线(附48例经验总结)[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(05): 549-553.
[3] 吴建永. 单中心2 000例心脏死亡器官捐献肾移植发展与创新[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 0-.
[4] 杨素霞, 朱晓隆, 朱有华, 陈宇童, 李雨虹, 隋明星, 李烟花. 不同补液方案对活体肾移植受者术后多尿期临床疗效和护理工作量的影响分析[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(03): 160-164.
[5] 方昌华, 杜霖, 陈鑫楠, 王昊, 王文帝, 张成伟, 秦海翔, 邱雪峰, 庄君龙, 徐林峰, 郭宏骞, 张古田. 以累积和分析法研究保留耻骨后间隙机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术的学习曲线[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 319-325.
[6] 魏勇, 沈露明, 朱辰, 成向明, 魏云飞, 袁琳, 苏健, 朱清毅. 单一术者机器人辅助单孔腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术学习曲线分析[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(01): 30-35.
[7] 刘和谦, 陶凌松, 王家伟, 陈弋生, 邹滨, 沈旭东. 肾蒂血管处理新策略对缩短后腹腔镜下肾癌根治术学习曲线的正面作用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(02): 147-150.
[8] 李陈钰, 贺青卿, 庄大勇, 周鹏, 岳涛, 邵长秀, 刘永祥, 徐婧, 李小磊. 经口腔前庭入路机器人甲状腺手术的学习曲线分析[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 15(05): 270-274.
[9] 张苗苗, 雷蕾, 徐庶钦, 冒健骐, 白纪刚, 耿智敏, 吕毅, 严小鹏. 磁锚定两孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除术学习曲线分析[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(01): 77-81.
[10] 张智春, 周远达, 曾庆昇, 李鹏, 杨红杰, 孙轶. 以CUSUM方法分析腹腔镜层面优先入路直肠癌侧方淋巴结清扫术的学习曲线[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(03): 200-206.
[11] 刘璇, 胡正霞, 王晓东, 兰海, 李开南. SuperPATH微创全髋关节置换术治疗老年股骨颈骨折的学习曲线研究与临床应用价值分析[J]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2023, 09(02): 73-80.
[12] 谭小云, 张靖, 刘珍银, 陈昆山, 夏杰军, 张明, 郭轶群, 陈穗颜. 盲法与超声引导下进行儿童股动脉穿刺的自身对照研究[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2023, 11(01): 1-5,18.
[13] 王楠钧, 柴宁莉, 令狐恩强, 李惠凯, 冯秀雪, 翟亚奇, 刘圣圳, 张文刚, 李隆松, 王沙沙, 王祥耀, 徐宁, 高飞. 活体猪模型在高阶内镜治疗技术培训中的应用价值[J]. 中华胃肠内镜电子杂志, 2022, 09(03): 156-161.
[14] 郑成文, 洪涛, 孙滕, 张昊. 机器人和胸腔镜胸腺切除术学习曲线比较[J]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2023, 10(01): 15-21.
[15] 汤庆峰, 黄晓科, 刘承万, 赖维奇, 李亮. 低功率钬激光前列腺剜除术治疗老年良性前列腺增生临床分析[J]. 中华老年病研究电子杂志, 2022, 09(03): 37-41.
阅读次数
全文


摘要