Assessment of Robot-Assisted Mandibular Contouring Surgery in Comparison With Traditional Surgery: A Prospective, Single-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial

被引:8
|
作者
Lin, Li [1 ]
Sun, Mengzhe [1 ]
Xu, Cheng [2 ]
Gao, Yuan [2 ]
Xu, Haisong [1 ]
Yang, Xianxian [1 ]
He, Hao [4 ]
Wang, Bingshun
Xie, Le [3 ]
Chai, Gang [1 ]
机构
[1] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Sch Med, Shanghai Peoples Hosp 9, Dept Plast & Reconstruct Surg, 639 Zhi Zao Ju Rd, Shanghai 200011, Peoples R China
[2] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Inst Forming Technol & Equipment, Xuhui Campus, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[3] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Inst Med Robot, Minhang Campus, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[4] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Sch Med, Clin Res Inst, Dept Biostat, Shanghai, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
ORTHOGNATHIC SURGERY; CLINICAL-EXPERIENCE; ANGLE; OSTEOTOMY; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.1093/asj/sjab392
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Few clinical studies on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for mandibular contouring have been reported. Objectives: The aim of this study was to follow the long-term effectiveness and safety of RAS for craniofacial bone surgery. Methods: This small-sample, early-phase, prospective, randomized controlled study included patients diagnosed with mandibular deformity requiring mandibular contouring surgery. Patients of both genders aged 18 to 30 years without complicated craniofacial repair defects were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by a permuted-block randomized assignments list generated by the study statistician. The primary outcomes were the positioning accuracy and accuracy of the osteotomy plane angle 1 week after surgery. Surgical auxiliary measurement index, patient satisfaction scale, surgical pain scale, perioperative period, and complications at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months after surgery were also analyzed. Results: One patient was lost to follow-up, resulting in a total of 14 patients in the traditional surgery group and 15 in the robot-assisted group (mean [standard deviation] age, 22.65 [3.60] years). Among the primary outcomes, there was a significant difference in the positioning accuracy (2.91 mm vs 1.65 mm; P < 0.01) and angle accuracy (13.26 degrees vs 4.85 degrees; P < 0.01) between the 2 groups. Secondary outcomes did not significantly differ. Conclusions: Compared to traditional surgery, robot-assisted mandibular contouring surgery showed improved precision in bone shaving, as well as higher safety.
引用
收藏
页码:567 / 579
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Commentary on: Assessment of Robot-Assisted Mandibular Contouring Surgery in Comparison With Traditional Surgery: A Prospective, Single-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial
    Wu, Guoping
    [J]. AESTHETIC SURGERY JOURNAL, 2022, 42 (06) : 580 - 581
  • [2] Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancers The COLRAR Randomized Controlled Trial
    Park, Jun Seok
    Lee, Sung Min
    Choi, Gyu-Seog
    Park, Soo Yeun
    Kim, Hye Jin
    Song, Seung Ho
    Min, Byung Soh
    Kim, Nam Kyu
    Kim, Seon Hahn
    Lee, Kang Young
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2023, 278 (01) : 31 - 38
  • [3] Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with the Hugo™ robot-assisted surgery system: A single-center initial experience in Japan
    Takahara, Kiyoshi
    Motonaga, Tomonari
    Nakamura, Wataru
    Saruta, Masanobu
    Nukaya, Takuhisa
    Takenaka, Masashi
    Zennami, Kenji
    Ichino, Manabu
    Sasaki, Hitomi
    Shiroki, Ryoichi
    [J]. ASIAN JOURNAL OF ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY, 2024, 17 (03)
  • [4] Advances in Robot-Assisted Surgery for Facial Bone Contouring Surgery
    Lin, Li
    Zhao, Zhijie
    Han, Wenqing
    Sun, Mengzhe
    Zhang, Ziwei
    Kim, Byeong Seop
    Yan, Yingjie
    Chen, Xiaojun
    Aung, Zin Mar
    Liu, Xiangqi
    Wang, Xuetong
    Li, Xing
    Yang, Xianxian
    Wang, Bingshun
    Xu, Haisong
    Chai, Gang
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2023, 34 (02) : 813 - 816
  • [5] Robot-assisted endoscopic surgery: A four-year single-center experience
    Ruurda, JP
    Draaisma, WA
    van Hillegersberg, R
    Rinkes, IHMB
    Gooszen, HG
    Janssen, LWM
    Simmermacher, RKJ
    Broeders, IAMJ
    [J]. DIGESTIVE SURGERY, 2005, 22 (05) : 313 - 320
  • [6] A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of robot-assisted vs freehand pedicle screw fixation in spine surgery
    Kim, Ho-Joong
    Jung, Whan-Ik
    Chang, Bong-Soon
    Lee, Choon-Ki
    Kang, Kyoung-Tak
    Yeom, Jin S.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY, 2017, 13 (03):
  • [7] Comparison of robot-assisted vitreoretinal surgery and manual surgery in different preclinical settings: a randomized trial
    Wang, Ting
    Xia, Jun
    Jin, Ling
    Zeng, Danqi
    Yan, Pisong
    Lin, Shengzhi
    Huang, Kai
    Lin, Haotian
    [J]. ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2022,
  • [8] Open or robot-assisted Surgery for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer Results of a randomized controlled Trial
    Bolenz, Christian
    Haese, Alexander
    [J]. ONKOLOGE, 2017, 23 (01): : 68 - 70
  • [9] Robot-assisted surgery for retrocaval ureter: a single center experience
    Pili, A.
    Re, Lo M.
    Livio, V.
    Olivera, L.
    Viola, L.
    Peschiera, F.
    Salamone, V.
    Mazzola, L.
    Marzocco, A.
    Bonutto, A.
    Gacci, M.
    Minervini, A.
    Serni, S.
    Masieri, L.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2023, 83
  • [10] Robot-assisted oncologic pelvic surgery with HugoTM robot-assisted surgery system: A-center
    Territo, Angelo
    Uleri, Alessandro
    Gallioli, Andrea
    Gaya, Josep Maria
    Verri, Paolo
    Basile, Giuseppe
    Farre, Alba
    Bravo, Alejandra
    Tedde, Alessandro
    Faba, Oscar Rodriguez
    Palou, Joan
    Breda, Alberto
    [J]. ASIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2023, 10 (04) : 461 - 466