BackgroundNatural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has been confirmed as an alternative approach without auxiliary incisions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the short-term and survival outcomes of NOSES versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP) in treatment of sigmoid and high rectal cancer.MethodThe retrospective study was conducted at single centers between January 2017 to December 2021. Relevant data included clinical demographics, pathological features, operative parameters, postoperative complications and survival outcomes were collected and analyzed. All procedures were performed using either a NOSES or a conventional LAP approach. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance clinical and pathological features between the two groups.ResultsAfter PSM, a total of 288 patients were eventually included in this study, 144 in each group. Patients in the NOSES group experienced faster recovery of gastrointestinal function (2.6 ± 0.8 vs. 3.6 ± 0.9 day, P = 0.037), less pain and less analgesia required (12.5% vs. 33.3%, P < 0.001). In addition, the incidence of surgical site infection in the LAP group was significantly higher than that in the NOSES group (12.5% vs. 4.2%, P = 0.011), especially incision-related complications (8.3% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.017). After a median follow-up of 32 (range, 3–75) months, the two groups had similar 3-year overall survival rates (88.4% vs. 88.6%; P = 0.850) and disease-free survival rates (82.9% vs. 77.2%; P = 0.494).ConclusionThe transrectal NOSES procedure is a well-established strategy with advantages in reducing postoperative pain, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, and less incision-related complications. In addition, the long-term survival is similar between NOSES and conventional laparoscopic surgery.
Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare whether laparoscopic low rectal cancer surgery with three different specimen extraction methods affects loop ileostomy closure. Materials and methods: A consecutive series of patients with low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection plus protective loop ileostomy (LAR-PLI) were enrolled. Three main techniques, namely specimen extraction through auxiliary incision (EXAI), specimen extraction through stoma incision (EXSI), and specimen eversion and extra-abdominal resection (EVER), were employed. The postoperative outcomes of the three techniques and the impact on loop ileostomy closure were compared. Results: In all, 254 patients were enrolled in this study: 104 (40.9%) in the EXAI group, 104 (40.9%) in the EXSI group, and 46 (18.1%) in the EVER group. For primary surgery, EXAI group had significantly longer operative time (P<0.001), more intraoperative bleeding (P<0.001), longer length of abdominal incision (P<0.001), longer time to first flatus (P<0.001), longer time to first defecation (P<0.001), longer time to first eat (P<0.001), and longer postoperative hospital stays (P=0.005) than the EXSI and EVER groups. The primary postoperative complication rate in the EXAI and EVER group was significantly higher than in the EXSI group (P=0.005). In loop ileostomy closure, EXAI group had significantly longer operative time (P=0.001), more bleeding volume and longer postoperative hospital stays (P<0.001) than the EXSI and EVER groups. Conclusions: All three techniques of LAR-PLI for low rectal cancer were safe and feasible, but specimen extraction via EXAI had no advantages in terms of early postoperative recovery and loop ileostomy closure.
Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare whether laparoscopic low rectal cancer surgery with three different specimen extraction methods affects loop ileostomy closure. Materials and methods A consecutive series of patients with low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection plus protective loop ileostomy (LAR-PLI) were enrolled. Three main techniques, namely specimen extraction through auxiliary incision (EXAI), specimen extraction through stoma incision (EXSI), and specimen eversion and extra-abdominal resection (EVER), were employed. The postoperative outcomes of the three techniques and the impact on loop ileostomy closure were compared. Results In all, 254 patients were enrolled in this study: 104 (40.9%) in the EXAI group, 104 (40.9%) in the EXSI group, and 46 (18.1%) in the EVER group. For primary surgery, EXAI group had significantly longer operative time (P < 0.001), more intraoperative bleeding (P < 0.001), longer length of abdominal incision (P༜0.001), longer time to first flatus (P < 0.001), longer time to first defecation (P < 0.001), longer time to first eat (P < 0.001), and longer postoperative hospital stays (P = 0.005) than the EXSI and EVER groups. The primary postoperative complication rate in the EXAI and EVER group was significantly higher than in the EXSI group (P = 0.005). In loop ileostomy closure, EXAI group had significantly longer operative time (P = 0.001), more bleeding volume and longer postoperative hospital stays (P < 0.001) than the EXSI and EVER groups. Conclusions All three techniques of LAR-PLI for low rectal cancer were safe and feasible, but specimen extraction via EXAI had no advantages in terms of early postoperative recovery and loop ileostomy closure.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.