• <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.

    久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 高清欧美精品videossex| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 不卡av一区二区三区| 男人操女人黄网站| 在线av久久热| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 亚洲综合色网址| 精品一区二区三卡| 色播在线永久视频| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| videosex国产| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 国产高清激情床上av| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 丝袜喷水一区| 午夜91福利影院| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影 | 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 天堂8中文在线网| av福利片在线| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | 曰老女人黄片| 女警被强在线播放| avwww免费| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 1024香蕉在线观看| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 美女主播在线视频| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 亚洲精品在线美女| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| tocl精华| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 亚洲av美国av| 老司机靠b影院| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 国产麻豆69| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 一进一出抽搐动态| 香蕉丝袜av| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 欧美在线黄色| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| netflix在线观看网站| 一级片'在线观看视频| 久久精品成人免费网站| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 国产精品影院久久| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 久久久久网色| 日日夜夜操网爽| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 亚洲国产看品久久| 久久婷婷成人综合色麻豆| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| av免费在线观看网站| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 美女主播在线视频| 日韩欧美免费精品| 国产又爽黄色视频| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 成人国语在线视频| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 热re99久久国产66热| 91麻豆av在线| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 欧美日韩黄片免| 怎么达到女性高潮| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲 | 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看 | 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 国产男女内射视频| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 久久久久网色| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 成人国产av品久久久| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 老熟女久久久| 一区二区三区激情视频| av国产精品久久久久影院| 老司机福利观看| av网站免费在线观看视频| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产 | 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 悠悠久久av| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 午夜福利视频精品| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 国产高清videossex| 中文字幕色久视频| 精品国产一区二区久久| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 69av精品久久久久久 | 国产精品免费大片| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 亚洲综合色网址| 欧美精品av麻豆av| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| a在线观看视频网站| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女 | 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 国产1区2区3区精品| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 97在线人人人人妻| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 一级毛片电影观看| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 亚洲免费av在线视频| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 午夜福利视频精品| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 久久中文字幕人妻熟女| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 一区二区三区精品91| a级毛片在线看网站| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产 | 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 99re在线观看精品视频| 丁香欧美五月| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 国产在线免费精品| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 国产在线观看jvid| 97在线人人人人妻| 自线自在国产av| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| 日韩免费av在线播放| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看 | 久久久精品94久久精品| 亚洲国产av新网站| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 成在线人永久免费视频| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 露出奶头的视频| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月 | 丝袜喷水一区| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 男女免费视频国产| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 蜜桃在线观看..| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 搡老岳熟女国产| 悠悠久久av| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 91大片在线观看| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 91国产中文字幕| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频| 免费看a级黄色片| 久久国产精品影院| 午夜福利视频精品| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9 | 免费不卡黄色视频| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 69av精品久久久久久 | 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| a在线观看视频网站| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲 | 制服人妻中文乱码| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 在线观看人妻少妇| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 国产不卡一卡二| 深夜精品福利| 天天添夜夜摸| 麻豆av在线久日| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 国产av又大| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 五月开心婷婷网| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 午夜福利,免费看| videosex国产| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 露出奶头的视频| 国产成人影院久久av| 三级毛片av免费| 夫妻午夜视频| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 香蕉久久夜色| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 成人影院久久| 成人三级做爰电影| 免费不卡黄色视频| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 女警被强在线播放| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 亚洲精品国产区一区二| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 1024香蕉在线观看| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 欧美精品一区二区大全| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 国产成人欧美在线观看 | 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| tube8黄色片| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 窝窝影院91人妻| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 欧美性长视频在线观看| 美女午夜性视频免费| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| bbb黄色大片| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 悠悠久久av| av视频免费观看在线观看| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 夫妻午夜视频| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| av天堂在线播放| 宅男免费午夜| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 五月天丁香电影| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 宅男免费午夜| 男女边摸边吃奶| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| av福利片在线| 在线播放国产精品三级| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 精品久久久精品久久久| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 免费观看av网站的网址| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 69av精品久久久久久 | 国产精品久久久久成人av| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 国产高清激情床上av| cao死你这个sao货| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 国产成人欧美| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| av天堂在线播放| 国产成人系列免费观看| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 麻豆av在线久日| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 天天躁日日躁夜夜躁夜夜| 日韩免费av在线播放| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 视频区图区小说| 久9热在线精品视频| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 在线av久久热| 操出白浆在线播放| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 99久久人妻综合| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯 | 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 极品教师在线免费播放| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 久久国产精品影院| 日韩视频在线欧美| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 一级毛片精品| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 久久久久网色| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| h视频一区二区三区| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人 | 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 久久狼人影院| 久久久久国内视频| 天堂动漫精品| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 五月开心婷婷网| 成人国语在线视频| 精品久久久精品久久久| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 搡老岳熟女国产| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 久久久久国内视频| 日日夜夜操网爽| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 亚洲欧美激情在线| av欧美777| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| a级毛片黄视频| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 亚洲色图av天堂| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 男女免费视频国产| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 无限看片的www在线观看| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 亚洲精品自拍成人| av一本久久久久| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 国产野战对白在线观看| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 大码成人一级视频| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 日韩免费av在线播放| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 99香蕉大伊视频| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| www.自偷自拍.com| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频 | 男女午夜视频在线观看| 国产成人精品在线电影| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 十八禁网站免费在线| 久9热在线精品视频| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 人妻一区二区av| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 色播在线永久视频| avwww免费| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女 | 伦理电影免费视频| av免费在线观看网站| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| av线在线观看网站| 搡老岳熟女国产| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 久久青草综合色| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 一区二区三区激情视频| 五月开心婷婷网| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| av视频免费观看在线观看| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 捣出白浆h1v1| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲 | 久久性视频一级片| 热re99久久国产66热| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av | 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 中文字幕色久视频| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 精品福利永久在线观看| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 一个人免费看片子| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 国产精品免费视频内射| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 精品人妻1区二区| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 欧美大码av| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 欧美大码av| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 一区二区三区激情视频| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 丁香六月天网| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 99久久人妻综合| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 操美女的视频在线观看| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 18在线观看网站| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 亚洲九九香蕉| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| av在线播放免费不卡| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 国产成人系列免费观看| 高清av免费在线| 天天影视国产精品| 夫妻午夜视频| av在线播放免费不卡| 在线播放国产精品三级| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 亚洲全国av大片| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费 | 国产在线免费精品| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 成人免费观看视频高清| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| videosex国产| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线|