Dataset Information

Comparison of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in the treatment effects of low rectal cancer.

ABSTRACT: Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is an intra-abdominal procedure that does not require an auxiliary incision to take a surgical sample from the abdominal wall through the natural orifice, but there are few systematic clinical studies on it. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of NOSES. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data and follow-up of 165 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent NOSES or conventional laparoscopic surgery at our center from January 2013 to June 2015. From the perioperative data and postoperative follow-up results of both groups, patients in the NOSES group had less intraoperative bleeding (49.3 ± 55.8 ml vs. 75.1 ± 57.3 ml, p = 0.02), shorter postoperative gastrointestinal recovery (42.3 ± 15.5 h vs. 50.1 ± 17.0 h, p = 0.01), less postoperative analgesic use (35.6% vs. 57.6%, p = 0.02), lower postoperative pain scores, lower rate of postoperative complications (6.8% vs. 25.4%, p = 0.01), better satisfaction of the image and cosmesis of the abdominal wall postoperatively, and higher quality of life. Moreover, there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between two groups. Overall, NOSES is a safe and reliable minimally invasive surgical technique for patients with low rectal cancer.

SUBMITTER: Zhu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8085046 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in the treatment effects of low rectal cancer.

Zhu Yihao Y Xiong Huan H Chen Yinggang Y Liu Zheng Z Jiang Zheng Z Huang Rui R Gao Feng F Zhang Qian Q Wang Meng M Jin Yinghu Y Qiao Tianyu T Ma Tianyi T Hu Hanqing H Wang Xishan X Tang Qingchao Q Wang Guiyu G

Scientific reports 20210429 1

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is an intra-abdominal procedure that does not require an auxiliary incision to take a surgical sample from the abdominal wall through the natural orifice, but there are few systematic clinical studies on it. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of NOSES. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data and follow-up of 165 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent NOSES or conventional laparoscopic surgery at our ...[more]

PMID: 33927293

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe conventional laparoscopic approach for the surgical management of deep endometriosis (DE) infiltrating the rectum appears to ensure improved digestive functional outcomes. The natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) technique for the treatment of colorectal DE can significantly accelerate postoperative recovery; however, data on gastrointestinal function following conventional laparoscopic segmental bowel resection (CLR) compared with NOSE-colectomy (NC) for DE are sparse.Materials and methodsBetween September 30, 2019, and December 31, 2020, a randomized, open-label, two-arm, parallel-group controlled trial with women aged 18-45 years was conducted at University Hospital.91 patients were randomized to CLR or NC, with DE infiltrating at least the muscular layer, at least 50% of the circumference of the bowel, up to 15 cm from the anal verge, exhibiting pain and bowel symptoms and/or infertility. The primary endpoint was bowel function, represented by Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS). Secondary parameters included the Endometriosis Health Profile 30 (EHP30), Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores preoperatively and at set times (one and six months, one year) following surgery.ResultsNo significant differences were observed in the postoperative LARS scores, VAS, EHP30, and GIQLI between the NC and CLR groups. LARS scores did not reveal significant differences 12 months postoperatively compared to the preoperative values in both groups (CLR-group P=0.93 versus NC-group, P=0.87). GIQLI scores were significantly improved 12 months after the operation compared with baseline values in the CLR-group (P=0.002) and NC-group (P=0.001). Pain symptoms and quality of life scores significantly improved 12 months postoperatively in both groups.ConclusionsNC is a feasible surgical approach for treating patients with rectal DE. Our study did not show a statistically significant difference between CLR and NC techniques in mid-term digestive and pain outcomes.

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.

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.

Dataset Information

Comparison of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in the treatment effects of low rectal cancer.

Publications

Comparison of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in the treatment effects of low rectal cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets