Literature DB >> 32989539

Precision functional sphincter-preserving surgery (PPS) for ultralow rectal cancer: a natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery technique.

Cheng-Le Zhuang1, Feng-Min Zhang1, Zheng Wang1, Xun Jiang1, Feng Wang1, Zhong-Chen Liu2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In patients with ultralow rectal cancer, surgical resection of the tumor without impairing sphincter function remains a technical challenge. The purpose of this study was to describe a new technique of transanal natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery using our independently developed devices, aiming to achieve precise cancer resection and preserve sphincter function in patients with ultralow rectal cancer.
METHODS: Precision functional sphincter-preserving surgery (PPS) was performed on nineteen patients with ultralow rectal cancer between June 2019 and April 2020. With the help of our independently developed devices, surgeons directly and accurately removed the lower edge of the tumor and retained healthy rectal tissue on the nontumorous side. Hand-sewn anastomosis with a mattress suture was used to achieve sturdy anastomosis. Preoperative baseline characteristics, operative details, 90-day postoperative complications, costs, and anal function score at 6 months after surgery were documented.
RESULTS: Nineteen ultralow rectal cancer patients with a median distance to the dentate line of 2.0 cm successfully underwent PPS without serious postoperative complications. Six out of nineteen patients (31.6%) received a prophylactic stoma. The average cost was 62164.1 yuan. At 6 months after surgery, the average Wexner anal function score and the average Vaizey score were both 3 points.
CONCLUSIONS: PPS can be employed to precisely resect rectal tumors and preserve sphincter function in ultralow rectal cancer patients. The use of our devices enhanced surgical efficiency, reduced the need for prophylactic stoma, reduced surgery-related costs, and prevented abdominal surgical incisions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hand-sewn anastomosis; Minimally invasive surgery; Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE); Rectal cancer; Sphincter preservation

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32989539     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07989-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  49 in total

1.  Wound complications of laparoscopic vs open colectomy.

Authors:  E R Winslow; J W Fleshman; E H Birnbaum; L M Brunt
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-06-27       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer.

Authors:  H Jaap Bonjer; Charlotte L Deijen; Gabor A Abis; Miguel A Cuesta; Martijn H G M van der Pas; Elly S M de Lange-de Klerk; Antonio M Lacy; Willem A Bemelman; John Andersson; Eva Angenete; Jacob Rosenberg; Alois Fuerst; Eva Haglind
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  One hundred years of curative surgery for rectal cancer: 1908-2008.

Authors:  M M Lange; H J Rutten; C J H van de Velde
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2008-11-13       Impact factor: 4.424

4.  Totally laparoscopic resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) has more advantages comparing with laparoscopic-assisted resection for selected patients with sigmoid colon or rectal cancer.

Authors:  Zhang Xingmao; Zhou Haitao; Liang Jianwei; Hou Huirong; Hu Junjie; Zhou Zhixiang
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Analysis of clinical factors associated with anal function after intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer.

Authors:  Masaaki Ito; Norio Saito; Masanori Sugito; Akihiro Kobayashi; Yusuke Nishizawa; Yoshiyuki Tsunoda
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 4.585

6.  An innovative technique for colorectal specimen retrieval: a new era of "natural orifice specimen extraction" (N.O.S.E).

Authors:  Chinnusamy Palanivelu; Muthukumaran Rangarajan; Priyadarshan Anand Jategaonkar; Natesan Vijay Anand
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2008-05-15       Impact factor: 4.585

7.  Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Martijn Hgm van der Pas; Eva Haglind; Miguel A Cuesta; Alois Fürst; Antonio M Lacy; Wim Cj Hop; Hendrik Jaap Bonjer
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 41.316

8.  Cancer statistics in China, 2015.

Authors:  Wanqing Chen; Rongshou Zheng; Peter D Baade; Siwei Zhang; Hongmei Zeng; Freddie Bray; Ahmedin Jemal; Xue Qin Yu; Jie He
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 508.702

9.  Laparoscopic colorectal resection does not reduce incisional hernia rates when compared with open colorectal resection.

Authors:  Ugo Ihedioha; Graham Mackay; Edward Leung; Richard G Molloy; Patrick J O'Dwyer
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 10.  Options for sphincter preservation in surgery for low rectal cancer.

Authors:  M G Tytherleigh; N J McC Mortensen
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 6.939

View more
  2 in total

1.  Safety and oncological outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery for right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kang Wang; Wenya Li; Ningquan Liu; Jianchun Cai; Yiyao Zhang
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2022-03-18

Review 2.  Surgical Treatment of Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: Updates.

Authors:  Cristopher Varela; Nam Kyu Kim
Journal:  Ann Coloproctol       Date:  2021-12-22
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.