Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of total laparoscopic surgery with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction (NOSE) with those for conventional laparoscopy (CL)-assisted surgery for treating rectal cancers.We reviewed the prospectively collected records of 844 patients (163 NOSE and 681 CL) who underwent curative surgery for mid- or upper rectal cancers from January 2006 to November 2012. We applied propensity score analyses and compared oncological outcomes for the NOSE and CL groups in a 1:1 matched cohort.After propensity score matching, each group included 138 patients; the NOSE and CL groups did not differ significantly in terms of baseline clinical characteristics. The median follow-up was 57.7 months (interquartile range, 42.4-82.5 months). The combined 5-year local recurrence rate for all tumor stages was 4.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9%-7.4%) in the NOSE group and 3.0% (95% CI, 0%-6.3%) in the CL group (P = 0.355). The combined 5-year disease-free survival rates for all stages were 89.3% (95% CI, 84.3%-94.3%) in the NOSE group and 87.3% (95% CI, 81.8%-92.9%) in the CL group (P = 0.639). The postoperative mean fecal incontinence scores at 6, 12, and 24 months were similar between the 2 groups.In our experience, NOSE for mid- and upper rectal cancer had acceptable long-term oncologic outcomes comparable to those of conventional minimal invasive surgery and seems to be a safe alternative to reduce access trauma.

SUBMITTER: Park JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5765275 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Park Jun Seok JS Kang Hyun H Park Soo Yeun SY Kim Hye Jin HJ Lee In Taek IT Choi Gyu-Seog GS

Annals of surgical treatment and research 20171228 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of total laparoscopic surgery with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction (NOSE) with those for conventional laparoscopy (CL)-assisted surgery for treating rectal cancers.<h4>Methods</h4>We reviewed the prospectively collected records of 844 patients (163 NOSE and 681 CL) who underwent curative surgery for mid- or upper rectal cancers from January 2006 to November 2012. We applied propensity score analyses and compared onco ...[more]

PMID: 29333423

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNatural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) is a technique that involves collecting a specimen for extraction through a natural opening avoiding a mini-laparotomy incision. The aim of this study was to compare NOSE and transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic (LAP) colorectal cancer surgery for postoperative outcomes and oncological safety.MethodA systematic search was conducted in five electronic databases from inception till October 2020. Articles were selected based on the inclusion criteria (studies comparing LAP and NOSE colorectal surgeries reporting at least one of the outcomes) and analysed. Primary outcomes included postoperative complications, pathological results (resection margins and lymph node collection), and oncological outcomes. Secondary outcomes included operating time, blood losses, use of analgesics, functional recovery, duration of hospital stay, and cosmetic results. Fixed and random-effect models were used to measure the pooled estimates.ResultsNineteen studies involving a total of 3432 participants were analysed (3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 16 retrospective non-randomized studies). Pooled results showed significantly reduced postoperative complications (OR 0.54; 95 per cent c.i. 0.44 to 0.67; P < 0.00001). Pathological outcomes of NOSE were comparable to LAP with no significant difference noted in terms of resection margins (P > 0.05) and lymph node collection (weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.47; 95 per cent c.i. -0.94 to 0; P = 0.05). Pooled analysis demonstrated comparable long-term outcomes in terms of cancer recurrence (OR 0.94; 95 per cent c.i. 0.63 to 1.39; P = 0.75), 5-year disease-free survival (HR 0.97; 95 per cent c.i. 0.73 to 1.29; P = 0.83), and overall survival (HR 0.93, 95 per cent c.i. 0.58 to -1.51; P = 0.78). Finally, the NOSE group had decreased use of additional analgesia after surgery and earlier resumption of oral intake when compared with LAP (respectively OR 0.28; 95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.37; P < 0.00001 and WMD -0.35; 95 per cent c.i. -0.54 to -0.15; P = 0.0005).ConclusionThis meta-analysis showed that in comparison with LAP, NOSE decreases severe postoperative morbidity while improving postoperative recovery without compromising oncological safety, but it is limited by the small number of RCTs performed in this field.

Project description:Robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction is a recently developed minimally invasive surgery used in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. However, its safety and feasibility remain undiscussed and controversial. This study reported the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors pertaining to traditional robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone against that of robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction to provide a discussion on this issue. 49 patients who underwent robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction and 49 matched patients who underwent conventional robotic assisted rectal cancer resection were systematically analyzed in this study. Regarding the baseline characteristics, after matching, no significant differences were observed between the natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) group and the robotic assisted rectal cancer resection (RARC) group. Patients in the NOSE group had a reduced visual analog scale (p?<?0.001), passed flatus more quickly (p?=?0.002) and suffered less surgical stress than those in the RARC group. Moreover, 4 complications were observed in the NOSE group and 7 complications in the RARC group with no significant difference (p?=?0.337) in terms of complications. The two groups had a similar survival outcomes, where the 3-year overall survival (p?=?0.738) and 3-year progression-free survival (p?=?0.986) were all comparable between the two groups. Histological differentiation and T stage could be regarded as independent prognostic factors for 3-year overall survival and 3-year progression-free survival. Robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction is a safe and feasible minimally invasive surgery for patients suffering from rectal cancer as it encompasses considerable several advantages. Histological differentiation and T stage may serve as independent prognostic factors for 3-year overall survival and 3-year progression-free survival.

Project description:BackgroundNatural orifice specimen extraction surgery is a novel technique of minimally invasive surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety of laparoscopic anterior resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE-LAR) and abdominal incision specimen extraction (AISE-LAR) for sigmoid or rectum tumors.MethodsMEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Scopus, and ClinicalTrials databases were systematically searched for related articles up to August 2019. The primary outcomes included postoperative complications (overall postoperative complication, incision-related complication, anastomotic fistula, and severe complication) and pathologic results (lymph nodes harvested, proximal resection margin, and distal resection edge). The statistical analysis was performed on STATA 12.0 software.ResultsTen studies comprising 1787 patients were used for meta-analysis. Compared with AISE-LAR, NOSE-LAR had more advantages in terms of overall postoperative complication (odds ratio (OR) = 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.90; P = 0.01)), incision-related complication (OR = 0.13 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.35; P < 0.01)), distal resection edge (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.17 cm (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.33 cm; P = 0.02)), recovery of gastrointestinal function (WMD = - 0.38 day (95% CI, - 0.70 to - 0.06 day; P = 0.02 )), pain scores in postoperative day 1 (WMD = - 1.64 (95% CI, - 2.31 to - 0.98; P < 0.01)), additional analgesics usage (OR = 0.21 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.40; P < 0.01)) and hospital stay (WMD = - 0.71 day (95% CI, - 1.10 to - 0.32 day; P < 0.01)), while the operation time of NOSE-LAR was prolonged (WMD = 7.4 min (95% CI, 0.17 to 14.64 min; P = 0.04)). The anastomotic fistula, severe complication, lymph nodes harvested, proximal resection margin, intraoperative blood loss, and long-term outcomes in NOSE-LAR were comparable with AISE-LAR.ConclusionsThe safety of NOSE-LAR was demonstrated, and it could be an alternative to conventional surgery in laparoscopic anterior resection for sigmoid and rectal tumors. However, further randomized and multi-center trials are required.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets