• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Robotic versus open and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery approaches for lobectomy

    2020-08-01 07:20:06FranoisMontagneBenjaminBottetMatthieuSarsamFrankieMbadingaZiedChaariPhilippeRinieriJeanMelkiChristophePeillonJeanMarcBaste
    Mini-invasive Surgery 2020年3期

    Fran?ois Montagne,Benjamin Bottet,Matthieu Sarsam,Frankie Mbadinga,Zied Chaari,2,Philippe Rinieri,Jean Melki,Christophe Peillon,Jean-Marc Baste

    1Department of General Thoracic Surgery,Rouen University Hospital,Rouen 76000,France.

    2Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery,Habib Bourguiba University Hospital,Sfax 3029,Tunisie.

    3Normandie University,UNIROUEN,INSERM U1096,Department of General Thoracic Surgery,Rouen University Hospital,Rouen 76000,France.

    Abstract

    Keywords: Minimally invasive surgery,robotic surgery,robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery,video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery,lobectomy,lung cancer,short-term outcomes,review

    INTRODUCTION

    Surgery is the cornerstone of early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment,and lobectomy is currently the preferred type of lung resection for clinical stages I and II of NSCLC[1].Minimally invasive approaches,namely video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS),are preferred for early stage NSCLC,and are even recommended for those early stage NSCLC[2].Robotic thoracic surgery has developed rapidly since the first publication by Melfiet al.[3]in 2002,which reported the first cases of robotic thoracic procedures including five lobectomies.

    Thoracic surgery approaches have evolved during the last two decades,as has the way of performing lung lobectomy,but not its goal.Lobectomy for NSCLC involves two steps,namely lung resection and complete lymph node resection,according to international recommendations[1,4-12].Minimally invasive surgery provides better short-term outcomes compared to open surgery,with fewer adverse events and shorter length of hospital stay[13-15].Until recently,many systematic reviews with meta-analyses and large retrospective databases comparing VATS and RATS lobectomy have provided conflicting results regarding short-term outcomes.

    Our goal in this mini-review is to report the main results of recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing the short-term outcomes of patients treated by RATS,VATS,or open surgery for lobectomy.

    METHODS

    PubMed and Web of Science were searched to identify potentially eligible literature up to 1 October 2019 reporting lobectomy performed by open surgery,VATS,or RATS and to collect data on the shortterm outcomes of patients according to each surgical approach.The search items were: “video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery” OR “VATS”,“robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery” OR “RATS”,“thoracotomy”,“l(fā)obectomy”,“l(fā)ung cancer”,“techniques”,“systematic review” AND “meta-analysis”,AND “national database”.Only articles in English language were included.

    RESULTS

    Performing lobectomy: common points and differences between RATS,VATS,and open thoracotomy

    With the advent and the spread of minimally invasive surgery,such as VATS and RATS,the use of open thoracotomy as the “gold standard approach” has decreased.Thoracotomy includes two approaches: anterolateral thoracotomy and posterolateral thoracotomy.With both approaches,whenever possible,a muscle sparing incision is made.To perform lobectomy for NSCLC,a hilar dissection or a fissureless technique is used.Mediastinal lymph node dissection is done before or after lobectomy.Thoracotomy is still the main approach to perform lobectomy for early stage NSCLC: between 2010 and 2012,67% of lobectomies were performed by open thoracotomy,26% by VATS,and 7% by RATS,as registered in the USA nationwide cancer database[16].

    VATS for early stage NSCLC is now well accepted,with better short-term outcomes[17,18][Table1].With VATS,a fissureless technique is preferred and mediastinal lymph node dissection is done at the end of the procedure.Despite the benefits associated with VATS lobectomy,this approach is not universally used for many reasons.The main reason is the technical difficulty in performing complete hilar,lobar,interlobar,and mediastinal lymph node resection[19]according to international recommendations.

    RATS offers some advantages compared to VATS.First,structures are magnified with a stable,highquality 3D optical instrument directed by the surgeon and not by the surgeon's assistant.Instruments have up to seven degrees of freedom due to the Endowrist system.With RATS,lobectomy adheres to oncologic principles as anatomical dissection and allows better lymph node dissection[20,21].The main limitations for the wide deployment of RATS are the higher cost of the procedure compared to VATS[22]and logistical issues.

    Table1.Main reports concerning short-term outcomes after lobectomy performed by thoracotomy or a minimally invasive approach as VATS or RATS for a NSCLC in studies used for this article

    DFS: disease free survival; HR: hazard ratio; OS: overall survival; OR: odds ratio; RATS: robotic-assisted thoracic surgery; RR: risk ratio; VATS: video-assisted thoracic surgery; WMD: weighted mean difference; NSCLC: non-small cell lung cancer

    Lymph node dissection and nodal upstaging by RATS,VATS,and open thoracotomy

    Intraoperative lymph node assessment is a critical component in the surgical treatment of NSCLC.Since the development of VATS,there has been controversy concerning lymph node dissection performed by VATS compared to open surgery.Studies have described the feasibility of using VATS to perform complete lymph node dissection and even nodal upstaging,although less commonly than by open surgery.With its intrinsic features,lymph node dissection has been described as easier to perform by RATS than by VATS[21,23].

    Kneuertzet al.[24]recently published a propensity-score adjusted comparison of lymph node upstaging by RATS,VATS,and open surgery during lobectomy for a cN0/N1 NSCLC in two centers.Between 2011 and 2018,911 patients were included (254 RATS,296 VATS,and 261 open surgery).The overall rate of lymph node upstaging was highest with open lobectomy (21.8%),followed by RATS (16.2%) and VATS (12.3%) (P= 0.03),with no difference concerning mediastinal N2 upstaging (P= 0.6).More nodes were sampled by open surgery (4) than by RATS (3.8) and VATS (3.6) (P= 0.001).Finally,on multivariate analysis,the rate of lymph node upstaging was lower for VATS compared to open surgery (OR 0.5,95%CI 0.29-0.85,P= 0.01) and not different between RATS and open surgery (OR 0.72,95%CI 0.44-1.18,P= 0.19).Multiple contemporary studies have reported the same overall long-term survival between VATS lobectomy and open lobectomy,which suggests that there is no decreased long-term survival for patients treated by VATS[25,26].Medberyet al.[27]reported a lower rate of nodal upstaging with VATS than with open surgery (P< 0.001),but,in the subgroup of patients operated on in a university hospital,there was no difference between groups (P= 0.08).Recently,Yanget al.[28]reported an absence of difference in the rate of nodal upstaging of patients with clinical T1-T2 N1 MO NSCLC and performed by VATS or open surgery (12% and 10.5%,respectively,P= 0.41).The five-year overall survival was not different between the two groups (48.6% and 48.7%,respectively,P= 0.76).With RATS,the rate of nodal upstaging was not different compared to open surgery,and higher than with VATS[20,21].

    Main results of meta-analysis and systematic reviews according to lobectomy performed by RATS,VATS,or open surgery

    Nget al.[13]published the latest and most extensive systematic review and meta-analysis in 2019 comparing VATS to open thoracotomy,VATS to RATS,and also multiport and uniport VATS.They included 138 studies and 7 randomized controlled trials with 369,793 patients.They analyzed short-term outcomes such as complications,mortality,and oncologic quality criteria with lymph node dissection and long-term outcomes.They also analyzed functional data with pain,quality of life,pulmonary function,and costeffectiveness.They reported a lower complication rate with VATS lobectomy than with open lobectomy (OR 0.64,95%CI 0.59-0.71,P< 0.001),and no difference in mortality rate (OR 0.78,95%CI 0.56-1.07,P= 0.12).The rate of nodal upstaging was lower with VATS than with open surgery (OR 0.71,95%CI 0.58-0.87),with no difference in the number of lymph nodes resected (P= 0.18) or nodal stations explored (P= 0.49).They found no difference in the rate of nodal upstaging between VATS and RATS (OR 1.02,95%CI 0.85-1.22,P= 0.87).Length of hospital stay was shorter after VATS than open surgery,-1.9 days (95%CI -2.25 to 1.54,P< 0.001),but there was no difference between VATS and RATS,-0.16 days (95%CI 0.81-0.48,P= 0.62).Concerning long-term outcomes,five-year overall survival was improved after VATS lobectomy compared to open lobectomy (OR 1.35,95%CI 1.17-1.56,P< 0.0001),with no difference observed in disease free survival (OR 1.15,95%CI 0.94-1.40,P= 0.18).There was no difference in five-year overall survival between VATS and RATS (OR 0.79,95%CI 0.47-1.33,P= 0.38) or in five-year disease free survival (OR 0.71,95%CI 0.44-1.14,P= 0.16).The main results of the reports analyzed in this article are presented in Table1.

    O'Sullivanet al.[14]published in 2018 the first systematic review and meta-analysis and concluded that RATS lobectomy significantly improved the short-term outcomes of patients more than VATS or open lobectomy.After RATS lobectomy,compared to open lobectomy,there was an improvement in short-term outcomes,with fewer complications (OR 0.67,95%CI 0.58-0.76,P< 0.00001),lower 30-day mortality (OR 0.53,95%CI 0.33-0.85,P= 0.08),and shorter length of hospital stay with weighted mean difference (WMD) of -1.4 days (95%CI -1.96 to 0.85,P< 0.00001),but longer operative times with WMD of 65.56 min (95%CI 53.66-77.46,P< 0.00001).After RATS lobectomy,compared to VATS lobectomy,there was a lower rate of 30-day mortality (OR 0.61,95%CI 0.45-0.83,P= 0.001),with longer operative times with WMD of 4.98 min (95%CI 2.61-7.36,P< 0.001).

    Adamset al.[29]in 2014 published one of the first retrospective multicenter comparisons of short-term outcomes after lobectomy performed by RATS,VATS,or open surgery and concluded that RATS was equivalent to VATS for all intraoperative and postoperative outcomes,but allowed better short-term outcomes compared to open surgery.Their main results were lower rates of postoperative blood transfusion (0.9%vs.7.8%,P= 0.002),fewer air leaks of more than five days (5.2%vs.10.8%,P= 0.05),shorter duration of chest tube placement (3.2 daysvs.4.8 days,P=< 0.001),and shorter length of stay (4.7 daysvs.7.3 days,P< 0.001).Agzarianet al.[30],Kentet al.[15],and Rajaramet al.[31]concluded that RATS was not superior to VATS for perioperative outcomes.Compared to open surgery,RATS was found superior with fewer perioperative outcomes[32].

    Until the publication of O'Sullivanet al.[14],systematic reviews and meta-analyses[32-36]found small significant differences in short-term outcomes between RATS and VATS lobectomy or no difference between these two minimally invasive surgical approaches.

    Minimally invasive approaches for locally advanced NSCLC

    Petersenet al.[37]in 2006 were among the first to demonstrate that VATS lobectomy was safe and feasible for selected patients with NSCLC who had received induction chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy.They reported short-term outcomes with no increase in the number of adverse events after VATS resection and with the same oncologic efficacy.Yanget al.[38]reported a propensity score matched analysis,in which survival of patients operated by VATS after induction chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy was similar to those who were operated by an open approach (P= 0.56).Moreover,30-day mortality was similar (P= 0.69).Veronesiet al.[39]reported a multicenter retrospective cohort of patients with stage III NSCLC and operated by a RATS procedure in seven high volume centers.They reported 223 NSCLC,32% of which were diagnosed cN2 preoperatively and 68% intraoperatively.The rate of conversion to thoracotomy was 9.9%,and the rate of Grade 3 and more complications was 10.3%.For patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy,the rate of conversion to thoracotomy was 15%,the rate of Grade 3 and 4 complications was 12%,and all were resected with R0 margins.Overall 90-day mortality was 4% but no patient who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy died.Three-year overall survival was 61.2%,while 60.3% in the group of patients treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy (P= 0.6).

    DISCUSSION

    In this mini-review,we compare short-term outcomes between lobectomy performed by minimally invasive VATS and RATS and lobectomy by open surgery.For several decades,VATS lobectomy has allowed better short-term outcomes compared to open surgery with at least the same long-term oncologic outcomes.These results were obtained by systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective series and of some randomized controlled trials.

    Before discussing the reported results,the common points and differences among RATS,VATS,and open approaches are clarified.Together,there are three surgical approaches but two surgical feelings and two resection concepts for lung lobectomy.

    Regarding surgical feelings,also called haptic - force and tactile - feedback,compared to open surgery,VATS allows us to feel each tension exerted on the tissues,because we directly manipulate the tissue,lung,lymph nodes,and other structures.Conversely,the robotic platform is a robotic device guided by the surgeon using a digital interface.With the Da Vinci platform,we do not receive sensitive feedback in our hands.This lack of feedback is one of the criticisms made of this surgical tool.However,“when one feeling is lacking,we say that another develops”.Thus,surgeons who can no longer rely on touch see their eyes sharpen,becoming an extension of their hands.With training,they learn and feel the tension exerted on the tissue by seeing the latter exerted on the tissue,allowing them to exceed this limit.The surgeon assistants who expose and retract the lung will also help the operator surgeons,because they can feel the exerted tension on lung by the robot and thus the operator.Nevertheless,robotic surgery industries are studying haptic feedback,but each robotic system is different,thus each research system is different.Moreover,it is important to first understand how we perceive force and tactile information,because it will affect the way we design haptic displays[40].

    Regarding resection concepts,compared to VATS and the anterior approach - e.g.,fissureless technique - RATS allows us to mimic open surgery techniques.The robotic platform allows thoracic surgeons to perform a lobectomy,as they would have done using an open approach.Conversely,the fissureless approach in VATS lobectomy is a necessary adaptation of a surgical technique.

    In 2016,Bendixenet al.[18]published a randomized controlled trial comparing lobectomy by VATS and by anterior muscle sparing thoracotomy.For VATS,the authors observed less pain on Postoperative Day 1 (P= 0.0012) and during the year after resection (P< 0.0001),as well as better quality of life according to EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ5D) (P= 0.014).Nevertheless,they found no difference between VATS and thoracotomy for postoperative Grade 3 and 4 adverse events,and quality of life according to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item quality of life questionnaire (QLC-C30) (P= 0.13).More recently,the first results of the randomized controlled VIOLET study[41]confirmed better shortterm outcomes after lobectomy by VATS than by open surgery.

    Postoperative complications affect mortality,and major one,as Grades ≥ 3 according to the Clavien-Dindo classification,have a significant impact on mortality but are rare,with a rate of 4.3% in the multicenter and retrospective review published by Caoet al.[42].This rate was comparable to outcomes of the CALGB 39802 study,which reported a rate of 7.4% for Grade ≥ 3 postoperative complications after a VATS lobectomy[43].In robotic practice,better short-term outcomes were observed after lobectomy by RATS than by open thoracotomy.However,most meta-analyses reported the same short-term outcomes,with as negative points longer operative times and more costly procedures compared to VATS lobectomy[13,15,29-31,34-36,44].Only O'Sullivanet al.[14]reported better short-term outcomes with fewer adverse events after lobectomy by RATS compared to VATS in a systematic review with meta-analysis.Nevertheless,some authors reported in retrospective studies a clear benefit of RATS compared to VATS.Reddyet al.[45]recently reported a propensity-matched comparison of lobectomies by surgeons who performed 20 or more VATS or RATS procedures annually.With 838 patients in each group,they observed in the RATS group a lower rate of conversion (4.8%vs.8%,P= 0.007),a lower rate of 30-day complications (33.4%vs.39.2%,P= 0.0128),and no difference in mortality rate,but with longer operative times by 25 min (P< 0.0001).They concluded in favor of RATS lobectomy for surgeons performing more than 20 procedures annually.One complication that is less often reported after robotic lobectomy is postoperative anemia requiring blood transfusion.Indeed,robotic surgery allows performing very precise gestures and in particular elective hemostasis during hilar dissection and lymph node resection.For example,Adamset al.[29]reported fewer blood transfusion after a RATS lobectomy compared to a VATS or open lobectomy (P< 0.05).

    Cost is presented as one of the major drawbacks of RATS[22].In the current context of resource management,Gondéet al.[46]conducted a precise assessment of the economic impact of RATS surgical innovation compared to VATS.RATS lobectomy was found more expensive than VATS lobectomy,and median total costs were €10,972vs.€9637 (P= 0.007).Costs related to length of stay were not different (P= 0.061),but excessive costs reported in the RATS group were explained by expensive medical devices and supplies used for RATS lung resection (P= 0.004).Nevertheless,these authors reported a significantly lower cost of their minimally invasive techniques compared to the mean cost in France (P= 0.001).Conversely,VATS was found to be a cost-effective alternative compared to thoracotomy in the randomized controlled trial of Bendixenet al.[47],with a savings of €4267 (P< 0.001).Subramanianet al.[48]reported that,compared to open lobectomy,RATS lobectomy was 13% more expensive (P< 0.001) and VATS lobectomy 2% less expensive (P= 0.007).In their report,they analyzed operating room costs and in-hospital costs from patients operated between 2008 and 2014 in Florida,with data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Florida State Inpatient Database.Minimal approaches were also associated with improved clinical outcomes compared to open lobectomy (P= 0.016),and increased operating room costs were compensated by in-hospital savings.Recently,Kneuertzet al.[49]reported a cost analysis performed at their center.They analyzed data from 697 patients operated by RATS (n = 296),VATS (n = 161),and open (n = 240) for a lobectomy between 2012 and 2017 and performed a propensity score adjustment.Unlike our report[46],and that of Subramanianet al.[48],the overall cost - including operating room costs and in-hospital costs - of the three approaches were similar: RATS $17,223,VATS $17,260,and open $18,075 (P= 0.48).Nevertheless,RATS and VATS approaches were associated with higher operating room costs - RATS $9912 and VATS $9491 - compared to open thoracotomy - $8698 (P= 0.001).Finally,according to their experience,despite the higher operating room costs calculated for RATS and VATS,it was recovered by postoperative costs reductions associated with improved postoperative outcomes and shorter hospital stay (P< 0.001).These three articles[46,48,49]reported higher operating room costs for RATS lobectomy but compensated by improved outcomes compared to thoracotomy.Nevertheless,RATS will always be more expensive,and our goal is to reduce this economic gap.Because patients are well prepared and conditioned within the framework of enhanced recovery protocols,they allow better short-term outcomes for patients operated by thoracotomy and lead to fewer adverse events,shorter length of hospital stay,and logically cost reductions for these patients in 2020 compared to patients operated 5 or 10 years ago.Minimally invasive lobectomy performed by VATS or RATS is recommended for early stage NSCLC[1]and the majority of series in this mini-review included stage I NSCLC.Some authors advocate the effectiveness of VATS and RATS for loco-regionally advanced NSCLC.More and more studies have described the effectiveness of a VATS approach for N positive status[50]and combined resection of a lobe,e.g.,with the chest wall[51],the superior vena cava[52]or a sleeve resection[53].For stage IIIA NSCLC,a VATS approach allowed at least the same long-term outcomes compared to thoracotomy,but with better short-term outcomes[38].Extended indications for loco-regionally advanced NSCLC are being explored in robotic thoracic surgery.With the benefits of improved visualization,stability,dexterity,and accuracy,some technical aspects of lobectomy,with complete lymph node dissection,are described as easier to perform by RATS than by VATS[23,54-56],with no difference in long-term outcomes.

    Performing minimally invasive surgery using a digital interface has enabled the use of innovative techniques and concepts.The first concept is the use of the simulation tool in the technical learning process.Thus,before performing their first minimally invasive lung resection on a patient,trainee surgeons are able to train on high definition digital simulators close to the reality of the operating room and thus improve their technical skills[57,58].Moreover,with a high-definition CT scanner and 3D modeling,it is possible to precisely plan a complex lung resection such as a segmentectomy on 3D representation[59].In addition,3D modeling can be visualized on screen.This augmented reality can be used for liver surgery,for example,but still requires development for lung resection.3D augmented reality could be used for VATS and RATS surgery and even for open surgery,by using specific glasses.The second concept is the use of safety controls via the robotic platform.Thus,before starting a procedure,security elements are specified to unlock the robot or even the optics of the VATS column to prevent intraoperative accidents.

    The majority of the included studies did not use propensity matching,but included heterogeneous groups of patients in terms of disease stage,comorbidity,and surgical approaches.This heterogeneity could potentially mask some results,but reflects “real-life practices in our unit”.As such,this mini-review does not provide conclusive evidence regarding the superiority of RATS compared to VATS for short-term outcomes.A randomized controlled trial is required to provide conclusive answers.

    CONCLUSION

    Robotic lobectomy could be a valid alternative to open surgery,and provides at least the same short-term outcomes compared to VATS.Based on the findings of recent meta-analyses,lobectomy performed by RATS compared to VATS could allow lower 30-day morbidity and mortality,but with longer operative times and higher surgical costs.According to recent reports,robotic technology seems to be a reasonable alternative to VATS and open surgery.This result must be interpreted with caution,as we cannot exclude an inherent bias related to meta-analyses.A randomized controlled trial with cost analysis and long-term follow-up may be useful to understand the role of robotic technology in thoracic surgery for the benefit of patients with NSCLC.

    DECLARATIONS

    Acknowledgements

    The authors are grateful to Nikki Sabourin-Gibbs (Rouen University Hospital) for her help in editing the manuscript.

    Authors' contribution

    Collected and selected articles: Montagne F,Baste JM

    Participated in manuscript,writing and review: Montagne F,Baste JM

    Participated in reviewing: Bottet B,Sarsam M,Mbadinga F,Chaari Z,Rinieri P,Melki J,Peillon C

    Availability of data and materials

    Not applicable.

    Financial support and sponsorship

    None.

    Conflicts of interest

    Baste JM is proctor for Intuitive Surgical? Medtronic? and Baxter?.

    Ethical approval and consent to participate

    Not applicable.

    Consent for publication

    Not applicable.

    Copyright

    ? The Author(s) 2020.

    伊人久久国产一区二区| 国产av国产精品国产| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看 | 高清欧美精品videossex| 久久午夜福利片| 久久 成人 亚洲| 精品第一国产精品| 高清av免费在线| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 亚洲av.av天堂| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到 | 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 乱人伦中国视频| 久久久久久久国产电影| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 黄色 视频免费看| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 亚洲伊人色综图| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 天天影视国产精品| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区 | 国产福利在线免费观看视频| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 久久99一区二区三区| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 亚洲成色77777| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费| 电影成人av| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 另类精品久久| 久久久久久人人人人人| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 中文天堂在线官网| 国产 一区精品| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 午夜激情久久久久久久| av一本久久久久| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 97在线视频观看| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| av国产精品久久久久影院| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 老司机影院成人| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 亚洲伊人色综图| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲 | 免费观看无遮挡的男女| 亚洲综合精品二区| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 1024香蕉在线观看| 在线精品无人区一区二区三| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 午夜日本视频在线| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 天天躁日日躁夜夜躁夜夜| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 国产 一区精品| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| av在线播放精品| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 成年av动漫网址| 久久久精品免费免费高清| av有码第一页| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 韩国av在线不卡| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 久久久欧美国产精品| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 18在线观看网站| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 精品一区在线观看国产| 亚洲成人手机| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| av在线app专区| 尾随美女入室| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 制服人妻中文乱码| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 在线天堂最新版资源| 国产精品 国内视频| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 精品一区在线观看国产| 精品久久久精品久久久| 国产成人aa在线观看| 一级爰片在线观看| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 久久99一区二区三区| 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 亚洲av电影在线进入| 两性夫妻黄色片| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 国产又爽黄色视频| www.av在线官网国产| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 久久久精品区二区三区| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| h视频一区二区三区| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆 | 亚洲国产欧美网| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 在线观看人妻少妇| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 国产亚洲最大av| 五月天丁香电影| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| av视频免费观看在线观看| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 性色avwww在线观看| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 欧美+日韩+精品| 久久免费观看电影| 中文字幕色久视频| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 人妻系列 视频| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲 | 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 热re99久久国产66热| 亚洲精品在线美女| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区 | 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| av在线播放精品| 99热全是精品| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区 | 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 1024视频免费在线观看| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 嫩草影院入口| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 成年动漫av网址| av.在线天堂| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 亚洲国产av新网站| 日韩av免费高清视频| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 久久午夜福利片| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 一区二区av电影网| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 多毛熟女@视频| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 美女午夜性视频免费| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 精品一区二区免费观看| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 在线精品无人区一区二区三| 大香蕉久久成人网| 成人影院久久| 三级国产精品片| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 午夜日本视频在线| 欧美另类一区| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 一级爰片在线观看| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 男人操女人黄网站| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 青春草国产在线视频| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精 国产伦在线观看视频一区 | 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 91成人精品电影| 日本免费在线观看一区| 美女国产视频在线观看| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| av卡一久久| av线在线观看网站| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| av片东京热男人的天堂| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 在线观看人妻少妇| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 另类精品久久| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看| 飞空精品影院首页| 在线天堂中文资源库| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| av在线播放精品| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 亚洲成色77777| 成人国产av品久久久| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 婷婷色综合www| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 高清av免费在线| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 只有这里有精品99| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 久热久热在线精品观看| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 国产在线视频一区二区| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 天天躁日日躁夜夜躁夜夜| 欧美在线黄色| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 免费观看性生交大片5| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 搡老乐熟女国产| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 色哟哟·www| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 只有这里有精品99| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频| 午夜影院在线不卡| 久久免费观看电影| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 97在线人人人人妻| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 91成人精品电影| 久久免费观看电影| 综合色丁香网| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 天堂8中文在线网| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 精品第一国产精品| 999久久久国产精品视频| 免费观看在线日韩| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 亚洲内射少妇av| 亚洲精品在线美女| 亚洲成人av在线免费| av网站在线播放免费| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 中文字幕制服av| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 黄色配什么色好看| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 熟女电影av网| 久久久久人妻精品一区果冻| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 综合色丁香网| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| av视频免费观看在线观看| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 尾随美女入室| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 五月开心婷婷网| 国产成人精品婷婷| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 男女边摸边吃奶| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 考比视频在线观看| 成人国产麻豆网| 久久精品夜色国产| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 国产成人欧美| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 一个人免费看片子| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 成人免费观看视频高清| 夫妻午夜视频| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 国产精品 国内视频| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 国产毛片在线视频| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 一区二区三区精品91| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 美国免费a级毛片| 在线精品无人区一区二区三| 亚洲av福利一区| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 亚洲国产欧美网| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 国产av精品麻豆| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 少妇 在线观看| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 99热网站在线观看| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 久久狼人影院| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 午夜激情av网站| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 黄频高清免费视频| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 老女人水多毛片| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| av视频免费观看在线观看| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 黄色 视频免费看| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 国产一区二区激情短视频 | 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 国产成人精品一,二区| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| www.自偷自拍.com| 9热在线视频观看99| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 男人操女人黄网站| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 秋霞伦理黄片| 在线观看三级黄色| av在线app专区| 一区二区av电影网| 婷婷成人精品国产| 电影成人av| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 在线精品无人区一区二区三| 久久久精品94久久精品| 国产成人精品一,二区| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 黄色 视频免费看| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 久久97久久精品| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看 | 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| 永久网站在线| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 黄色配什么色好看| 我的亚洲天堂| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看 | 国产男女内射视频| 丝袜喷水一区| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到 | 国产 精品1| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费| 热re99久久国产66热| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 成人国产麻豆网| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 一区二区三区精品91| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影 | 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 满18在线观看网站| 五月天丁香电影| 久久99一区二区三区| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 一级毛片我不卡| 色网站视频免费| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 我的亚洲天堂| 捣出白浆h1v1| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区 | 我的亚洲天堂| 伦精品一区二区三区| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 国产精品免费大片| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 日韩电影二区| 国产激情久久老熟女| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 国产精品免费大片| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| av一本久久久久| 黄片小视频在线播放| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 亚洲国产精品999| 我的亚洲天堂| 91精品三级在线观看| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 午夜福利视频精品| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 精品久久久精品久久久| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看 | 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 日韩电影二区| 国产亚洲最大av| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 18+在线观看网站| 国产片内射在线| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 美女福利国产在线| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 国产爽快片一区二区三区| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 久久狼人影院| 久久久久人妻精品一区果冻| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| videossex国产| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 最黄视频免费看| av在线老鸭窝| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 美女福利国产在线| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 亚洲国产色片| 大香蕉久久成人网| 久久久久久人妻| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 午夜福利在线免费观看网站| 高清欧美精品videossex| 1024视频免费在线观看| 黄色 视频免费看| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 亚洲国产色片| 国产精品一国产av| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 久久久国产一区二区| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片|