Literature DB >> 33223760

Safety and survival outcomes of transanal natural orifice specimen extraction using prolapsing technique for patients with middle- to low-rectal cancer.

Zhao Lu1, Haipeng Chen1, Mingguang Zhang1, Xu Guan1, Zhixun Zhao1, Zheng Jiang1, Zheng Liu1, Zhaoxu Zheng1, Xishan Wang1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The transanal approach to specimen collection, combined with the prolapsing technique, is a well-established and minimally invasive surgery for treating rectal cancer. However, reports on outcomes for this approach are sparse. We compared short- and long-term outcomes of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) vs. transanal natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) using the prolapsing technique for patients with middle- to low-rectal cancer.
METHODS: From January 2013 to December 2017, we enrolled consecutive patients with middle- to low-rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection. Totally, 50 patients who underwent transanal NOSE using the prolapsing technique were matched with 50 patients who received CLS. Clinical parameters and survival outcomes between the two groups were compared.
RESULTS: Estimated blood loss (29.70±29.28 vs. 52.80±45.09 mL, P=0.003), time to first flatus (2.50±0.79 vs. 2.86±0.76, P=0.022), time to liquid diet (3.62±0.64 vs. 4.20±0.76 d, P<0.001), and the need for analgesics (22%vs. 48%, P=0.006) were significantly lower for the NOSE group compared to the CLS group. The incidences of overall complications and fecal incontinence were comparable in both groups. After a median follow-up of 44.52 months, the overall local recurrence rate (6% vs. 5%, P=0.670), 3-year disease-free survival (86.7% vs. 88.0%, P=0.945) and 3-year overall survival (95.6% vs. 96.0%, P=0.708), were not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: For total laparoscopic rectal resection, transanal NOSE using the prolapsing technique is effective and safe, and associated with less trauma and pain, a faster recovery, and similar survival outcomes compared to CLS.
Copyright © 2020 Chinese Journal of Cancer Research. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Natural orifice specimen extraction; prolapsing technique; rectal cancer; survival; transanal specimen extraction

Year:  2020        PMID: 33223760      PMCID: PMC7666784          DOI: 10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2020.05.10

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res        ISSN: 1000-9604            Impact factor:   5.087


  26 in total

1.  Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and anterior resection with curative intent for carcinoma of the rectum.

Authors:  H Scheidbach; C Schneider; J Konradt; E Bärlehner; L Köhler; Ch Wittekind; F Köckerling
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-11-12       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Relationship between multiple numbers of stapler firings during rectal division and anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal resection.

Authors:  Masaaki Ito; Masanori Sugito; Akihiro Kobayashi; Yusuke Nishizawa; Yoshiyuki Tsunoda; Norio Saito
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a comparison of natural orifice versus transabdominal specimen extraction.

Authors:  Ziad T Awad; Reginald Griffin
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Prospective evaluation of peritoneal fluid contamination following transabdominal vs. transanal specimen extraction in laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resections.

Authors:  Federico A Costantino; Michele Diana; James Wall; Joel Leroy; Didier Mutter; Jacques Marescaux
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-12-17       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Open Versus Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Versus Transanal Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Constantinos Simillis; Nikhil Lal; Sarah N Thoukididou; Christos Kontovounisios; Jason J Smith; Roel Hompes; Michel Adamina; Paris P Tekkis
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Seung-Yong Jeong; Ji Won Park; Byung Ho Nam; Sohee Kim; Sung-Bum Kang; Seok-Byung Lim; Hyo Seong Choi; Duck-Woo Kim; Hee Jin Chang; Dae Yong Kim; Kyung Hae Jung; Tae-You Kim; Gyeong Hoon Kang; Eui Kyu Chie; Sun Young Kim; Dae Kyung Sohn; Dae-Hyun Kim; Jae-Sung Kim; Hye Seung Lee; Jee Hyun Kim; Jae Hwan Oh
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  Prospective randomized trial of hybrid NOTES colectomy versus conventional laparoscopic colectomy for left-sided colonic tumors.

Authors:  Alex Lik Hang Leung; Hester Yui Shan Cheung; Benny Ka Lung Fok; Cliff Chi Chiu Chung; Michael Ka Wah Li; Chung Ngai Tang
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Impact of the Specific Extraction-Site Location on the Risk of Incisional Hernia After Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection.

Authors:  Cigdem Benlice; Luca Stocchi; Meagan M Costedio; Emre Gorgun; Hermann Kessler
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 4.585

9.  Long-term outcomes in patients with ypT0 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and curative resection.

Authors:  Zhao Lu; Pu Cheng; Fu Yang; Zhaoxu Zheng; Xishan Wang
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 5.087

10.  Long-term outcomes after Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction versus conventional laparoscopy-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: a matched case-control study.

Authors:  Jun Seok Park; Hyun Kang; Soo Yeun Park; Hye Jin Kim; In Taek Lee; Gyu-Seog Choi
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 1.859

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.