推动中国机器人乳腺手术规范化发展的指导意见

中华医学会外科学分会乳腺外科学组

中国实用外科杂志 ›› 2025, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (12) : 1368-1370.

PDF(1290 KB)
PDF(1290 KB)
中国实用外科杂志 ›› 2025, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (12) : 1368-1370. DOI: 10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2025.12.03
指南(规范)与共识

推动中国机器人乳腺手术规范化发展的指导意见

作者信息 +

Guiding opinions of the Chinese Medical Association on promoting the standardized development of robotic-assisted breast surgery in China

Author information +
文章历史 +

引用本文

导出引用
中华医学会外科学分会乳腺外科学组. 推动中国机器人乳腺手术规范化发展的指导意见[J]. 中国实用外科杂志. 2025, 45(12): 1368-1370 https://doi.org/10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2025.12.03
Chinese Society of Breast Surgery, Chinese Society of Surgery, Chinese Medical Association. Guiding opinions of the Chinese Medical Association on promoting the standardized development of robotic-assisted breast surgery in China[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Surgery. 2025, 45(12): 1368-1370 https://doi.org/10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2025.12.03
中图分类号: R6   

参考文献

[1]
Egan KG, Selber JC. Modern innovations in breast surgery: robotic breast surgery and robotic breast reconstruction[J]. Clin Plast Surg, 2023, 50(2):357-366.DOI:10.1016/j.cps.2022.11.004.
Robotic surgery has a history of applications in multiple surgical areas and has been applied in plastic surgery over the past decade. Robotic surgery allows for minimal access incisions and decreased donor site morbidity in breast extirpative surgery, breast reconstruction, and lymphedema surgery. Although a learning curve exists for the use of this technology, it can be safely applied with careful preoperative planning. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy may be combined with either robotic alloplastic or robotic autologous reconstruction in the appropriate patient.Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
[2]
Goel A, Pamnani S, Anjankar A. Robot-assisted surgery in the treatment of gynecological carcinoma and malignancies: introduction to the da vinci robotic surgery system[J]. Cureus, 2023, 15(8):e43035.DOI:10.7759/cureus.43035.
[3]
刘荣, 尹注增, 赵之明, 等. 应用机器人手术系统行肝胆胰手术单中心1000例报告[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2017, 37(3): 288-290. DOI: 10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2017.03.019.
[4]
Randle BJP. Morgan Healthcare Conference 2022[C/OL]. (2022-01-10/ 2022-01-13)[2025-10-10]. https://www.jpmorgan.com/about-us/events-conferences/health-care-conference
[5]
Brian JW, Chen JT, Hansen P, et al. SRT-H: A hierarchical framework for autonomous surgery via language-conditioned imitation learning[J]. Sci Robot, 2025, 10(104):eadt5254.DOI:10.1126/scirobotics.adt5254.
[6]
国家卫生健康委办公厅. 国家限制类技术目录和临床应用管理规范(2022年版)[EB/OL]. (2022-04-20)[2025-08-22]. https://www.nhc.gov.cn/yzygj/c100068/202204/2655831f6f444b00b3e50604e67531f5.shtml
[7]
Kwoh YS, Hou J, Jonckheere EA, et al. A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery[J]. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 1988, 35(2):153-160.DOI:10.1109/10.1354.
[8]
Toesca A, Peradze N, Manconi A, et al. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer: Feasibility and safety study[J]. Breast, 2017, 31:51-56.DOI:10.1016/j.breast.2016.10.009.
We previously devised and reported on an innovative surgical technique of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate robotic breast reconstruction. Here we describe the outcome of the first 29 such consecutive procedures performed on breast cancer patients to assess feasibility, reproducibility and safety.The following morbidity factors were tested: operation time, conversion rate to open technique, length of hospitalization, registration of complications for 1 year postoperatively and their characterization as either minor, major, or multiple, depending on clinical severity and treatment required.The total duration of the final robotic surgeries of our series was around 3 h, showing a very rapid learning curve. The conversion rate due to technical problems was 2 of the 29 procedures (6,9%). No major complications, including hematoma, seroma, skin or nipple-areola injury or necrosis or infection were observed for any case. Two patients had a small degree of blistering from internal electrocautery in the breast skin flap, both of which resolved in one week without any specific therapy. No systemic complications were observed.The low conversion rate to open surgery, the rapid learning curve and the low rate of post-operative complications observed in this preliminary series lead us to endorse a prospective study aimed at evaluating patient satisfaction.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
[9]
Nessa A, Shaikh S, Fuller M, et al. Postoperative complications and surgical outcomes of robotic versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: meta-analysis[J]. Br J Surg, 2024, 111(1):znad336.DOI:10.1093/bjs/znad336.
[10]
Bailey CR, Ogbuagu O, Baltodano PA, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes improve with nipple-sparing mastectomy and breast reconstruction[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2017, 140(2):219-226.DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000003505.
Loss of the nipple-areola complex can be psychologically and sexually devastating. Nipple-sparing mastectomy provides robust cosmetic results, but few studies have investigated the quality-of-life outcomes associated with it.The authors performed an institutional review board-approved retrospective study of 32 patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy with implant-based or autologous reconstruction and 32 control patients who underwent non-nipple-sparing mastectomy with reconstruction matched by reconstruction type and operative period. They then compared premastectomy and postreconstruction responses to the BREAST-Q, a validated and breast reconstruction-specific quality-of-life questionnaire, within and between their study and control populations.The nipple-sparing and non-nipple-sparing mastectomy groups were statistically similar in terms of mean age [49.9 ± 8.5 years (range, 36 to 69 years) and 47.7 ± 10.3 years (range, 26 to 68 years) (p = 0.29), respectively] and mean body mass index [24.3 ± 3.5 kg/m (range, 17.9 to 33.7 kg/m) and 25.5 ± 5.4 kg/m (range, 19.2 to 39.2 kg/m) (p = 0.29), respectively]. There were no significant between-group differences in occurrence of postreconstruction complications. The authors found significantly higher mean postreconstruction scores in the nipple-sparing mastectomy group within the Satisfaction with Breasts (p = 0.039) and the Satisfaction with Outcome (p = 0.017) domains. Finally, they noted higher median postreconstruction scores in the nipple-sparing mastectomy group within the Psychosocial Well-being (p = 0.043) and Satisfaction with Breasts (p = 0.004) domains.Psychological concerns regarding malignancy may negatively impact premastectomy patient quality of life. Reconstructive surgery improves patients' postmastectomy quality of life. Nipple-sparing mastectomy appears to provide significantly better improvement in postreconstruction quality of life, specifically in the Satisfaction with Breasts and Satisfaction with Outcome domains of the BREAST-Q, compared with non-nipple-sparing mastectomies.Therapeutic, III.
[11]
Lai HW, Chen DR, Liu LC, et al. Robotic versus conventional or endoscopic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate prosthesis breast reconstruction in the management of breast cancer: a prospectively designed multicenter trial comparing clinical outcomes, medical cost, and patient-reported outcomes (RCENSM-P)[J]. Ann Surg, 2024, 279(1):138-146.DOI:10.1097/SLA.0000000000005924.
To compare the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of minimal access and conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (C-NSM). The secondary outcomes investigated included medical costs and oncological safety.
[12]
Headon HL, Kasem A, Mokbel K. The oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of the literature with a pooled analysis of 12,358 procedures[J]. Arch Plast Surg, 2016, 43(4):328-338.DOI:10.5999/aps.2016.43.4.328.
Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is increasingly popular as a procedure for the treatment of breast cancer and as a prophylactic procedure for those at high risk of developing the disease. However, it remains a controversial option due to questions regarding its oncological safety and concerns regarding locoregional recurrence. This systematic review with a pooled analysis examines the current literature regarding NSM, including locoregional recurrence and complication rates. Systematic electronic searches were conducted using the PubMed database and the Ovid database for studies reporting the indications for NSM and the subsequent outcomes. Studies between January 1970 and January 2015 (inclusive) were analysed if they met the inclusion criteria. Pooled descriptive statistics were performed. Seventy-three studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis, yielding 12,358 procedures. After a mean follow up of 38 months (range, 7.4-156 months), the overall pooled locoregional recurrence rate was 2.38%, the overall complication rate was 22.3%, and the overall incidence of nipple necrosis, either partial or total, was 5.9%. Significant heterogeneity was found among the published studies and patient selection was affected by tumour characteristics. We concluded that NSM appears to be an oncologically safe option for appropriately selected patients, with low rates of locoregional recurrence. For NSM to be performed, tumours should be peripherally located, smaller than 5 cm in diameter, located more than 2 cm away from the nipple margin, and human epidermal growth factor 2-negative. A separate histopathological examination of the subareolar tissue and exclusion of malignancy at this site is essential for safe oncological practice. Long-term follow-up studies and prospective cohort studies are required in order to determine the best reconstructive methods.
[13]
Qu S, Zhang W, Li S, et al. The vacuum-assisted breast biopsy system is an effective strategy for the treatment of gynecomastia[J]. Aesthetic Plast Surg, 2021, 45(2):404-410.DOI:10.1007/s00266-020-01931-8.
[14]
陈阔, 吕鹏威. 机器人与传统乳腺癌保留乳头乳晕皮下腺体切除即刻假体乳房重建术疗效对比研究[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2024, 44(11): 1276-1280, 1285. DOI: 10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2024.11.17.
[15]
张泽平, 李祖曦, 乔吉灵, 等. 5G远程机器人手术应用现状及前景[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2024, 44(7): 836-838, 840. DOI: 10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2024.07.022.
[16]
Chen K, Beeraka M, Zhang J, et al. Efficacy of da Vinci robot-assisted lymph node surgery than conventional axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer - A comparative study[J]. Int J Med Robot, 2021, 17(6):e2307.DOI:10.1002/rcs.2307.
da Vinci robot‐assisted axillary lymph node dissection (dVALND) can be a minimally invasive technique to minimize post‐operative complications.
[17]
Farr DE, Haddock NT, Tellez J, et al. Safety and feasibility of single-port robotic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy[J]. JAMA Surg, 2024, 159(3):269-276.DOI:10.1001/jamasurg.2023.6999.
Robotic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomies with multiport robots have been described in the US since 2015; however, significant hurdles to multiport robotic surgery exist in breast surgery.To demonstrate that the single-port da Vinci SP (Intuitive Surgical) robotic system is feasible in patients undergoing robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (rNSM).An initial case series of 20 patients at a large university hospital underwent bilateral single-port robotic nipple-sparing mastectomies (SPrNSM) with tissue expander reconstruction from February 1, 2020, through January 4, 2023. Participants included women who met surgical criteria for nipple-sparing mastectomies, per standard of care.Surgery using a single-port robot and the surgical technique of the authors.Age, indication, body mass index, breast size, operative time, conversion to open surgery, systemic complications, postoperative skin necrosis, and reported skin and nipple areolar complex (NAC) sensation.Twenty women aged 29 to 63 years (median, 40 years) underwent bilateral SPrNSM. Eleven patients completed prophylactic surgery due to a high risk for breast cancer (more than 20% lifetime risk) and 9 patients had breast cancer. Breast size ranged from A through D cup with median B cup and a body mass index range of 19.7 through 27.8 (median 24.4). The total duration of the procedure from incision to skin closure for both sides ranged from 205 minutes to 351 minutes (median, 277). The median robotic time for bilateral SPrNSM was 116 minutes and varied by cup size (A cup, 95 minutes; B cup, 140 minutes; C cup, 118 minutes; D cup, 114 minutes) with no inflection point in learning curve. No cases were converted to open and no immediate complications, such as hematoma, positive margins, or recurrence, were seen. In the first 10 patients prior to routine sensation testing, 20 resected breasts had measurable NAC sensation at a range from 4 to 36 months post-index resection (65%). In the second 10 patients of the cohort, measurable NAC was preserved in 13 of 20 resected breasts 2 weeks following the index operation (65%).In this case series, SPrNSM with immediate reconstruction was feasible and performed safely by an experienced breast surgeon with limited previous robotic training. Further studies confirming the preliminary data demonstrating improved NAC and skin sensation following SPrNSM are warranted.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05245812.
[18]
国际机器人乳腺外科手术专家协作组(专家委员会). 机器人乳腺癌手术专家共识[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(3): 129-139. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0807.2024.03.001.

基金

吉林省重点研发基金项目(20230203096SF)
吉林省乳腺疾病防治工程中心自主创新能力建设项目(ZKJCFGW2023003)
中央高水平医院临床科研业务费资助项目(2024YC21)
北京科创医学发展基金会项目(KC2025-JX-0003-6)

PDF(1290 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

段落导航
相关文章

/