Short-term clinical outcomes and five-year survival analysis of laparoscopic-assisted transanal natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid and rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective study

Abstract

BackgroundThe cosmetic benefits of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) are easily noticeable, but its principles of aseptic and tumor-free procedure have caused controversy.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinical data of patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted transanal NOSE or conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for sigmoid and rectal cancer at our hospital between January 2018 and December 2018. The study aimed to compare the general characteristics, perioperative indicators, postoperative complications, and five-year follow-up results between the two groups.ResultsA total of 121 eligible patients were enrolled, with 52 underwent laparoscopic-assisted transanal NOSE and 69 underwent CLS. There were no significant differences observed between the two groups in terms of gender, age, body mass index (BMI), TNM stage, etc. (P > 0.05). However, the NOSE group exhibited significantly shorter total incision length and longer operation time compared to the CLS group (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences observed between the two groups in terms of positive rate of bacterial culture, incidence rates of intraabdominal infections or anastomotic leakage (P > 0.05). Furthermore, during follow-up period there was no statistically significant difference observed between these two groups concerning overall survival rate and disease-free survival outcomes (P > 0.05).ConclusionsThe management of surgical complications in CLS is exemplary, with NOSE presenting a sole advantage in terms of incision length albeit at the cost of prolonged operative time. Therefore, NOSE may be deemed appropriate for patients who place high emphasis on postoperative cosmetic outcomes.