Dataset Information

A nomogram for predicting feasibility of laparoscopic anterior resection with trans-rectal specimen extraction (NOSES) in patients with upper rectal cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Laparoscopic anterior resection with trans-rectal specimen extraction (NOSES) has been demonstrated as a safe and effective technique in appropriate patients with upper rectal cancer (RC). However, improper selection of RC candidates for NOSES may lead to potential surgical and oncological unsafety as well as complications such as bacteria contamination and anastomotic leak. Unfortunately, no tools are available for evaluating the risk and excluding improper cases before surgery. This study aims to estimate its clinical relevancy and to investigate independent clinical-pathological predictors for identifying candidates for NOSES in patients with upper RC and to develop a validated scoring nomogram to facilitate clinical decision making.

Methods

The study was performed at Shanghai East hospital, a tertiary medical center and teaching hospital. 111 eligible patients with upper RC who underwent elective laparoscopic anterior resection between February and October of 2017 were included in the final analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare characteristics between the two surgical techniques. Odds ratios (OR) were determined by logistic regression analyses to identify and quantify the clinical relevancy and ability of predictors for identifying NOSES candidate. The nomogram was constructed and characterized by c-index, calibration, bootstrapping validation, ROC curve analysis, and decision curve analysis.

Results

Upper RC patients with successful NOSES tended to be featured with female gender, negative preoperative CEA/CA19-9, decreased mesorectum length (MRL), ratio of diameter (ROD) and ratio of area (ROA) values, while no significant statistical correlations were observed with age, body mass index (BMI), tumor location, and tumor-related biological characteristics (ie., vascular invasion, lymph node count, TNM stages). Furthermore, the two techniques exhibited comparably low incidence of perioperative complications and achieved similar functional results under the standard procedures. The nomogram incorporating three independent preoperative predictors including gender, CEA status and ROD showed a high c-index of 0.814 and considerable reliability, accuracy and clinical net benefit.

Conclusions

NOSES for patients with upper RC is multifactorial; while it is a safe and efficient technique if used properly. The nomogram is useful for patient evaluation in the future.

SUBMITTER: Zhang ZY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8212478 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Natural 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. METHODS:MEDLINE (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. RESULTS:Ten 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. CONCLUSIONS:The 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 surgeries (NOSES) have been applied to colorectal cancer (CRC). Different types of NOSES have been proposed. Traditional laparoscopic CRC surgeries (non-NOSES) have been widely adopted in clinical practice. Therefore, the safety and feasibility of NOSES could be clarified by comparing with non-NOSES.MethodsConsecutive cases who underwent NOSE or non-NOSE rectal surgeries were retrospectively collected at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018. Other inclusion criteria included patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum within 15 cm of the anal verge, over the age of 18 and undergoing primary laparoscopic rectal resection. Patients who were lost to follow-up or had incomplete information were excluded. Basic characteristics including gender, tumor location, age, staging, treatment, and Body Mass Index (BMI) were analyzed. Short-term outcomes including comorbidities, intra-operative blood loss, hospital stay, gas exhaust time were compared between different NOSES and non-NOSES groups. Long-term outcomes including overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were also analyzed. Patients were followed-up during the inpatient period, at an outpatient clinic, or by phone call.ResultsA total of 196 NOSES cases and 243 non-NOSES cases were included. There was a sex difference between the two groups and other factors were comparable. Cases were divided into NOSES groups [including extra-abdominal resection (EVER), specimen extraction and extra-abdominal resection (EXER), and intra-abdominal resection and specimen extraction (IREX)] and non-NOSES groups. Differences in sex (P=0.016), BMI (with mean of 22.08, 22.00, 22.53, and 23.26 kg/m2, P=0.003), and staging (P=0.008) were observed between the four groups. There was a difference in the intra-operative blood loss between NOSES and non-NOSES groups (57.05±62.78, 52.65±68.19, 36.52±43.99 vs. 76.12±90.11 mL, P=0.002), in which NOSES groups had less blood loss. Furthermore, NOSES groups showed a better post-operative gas exhaust time (54.68±37.80, 45.06±24.69, 47.91±28.93 vs. 56.94±27.69 hours, P=0.012). NOSES groups also had fewer ileostomies (17 vs. 37, P=0.003). There was no difference in the long-term DFS and OS between the two groups.ConclusionsNOSES in rectal cancer showed better short-term outcomes and had comparable long-term outcomes compared with non-NOSE surgeries.

Project description:BackgroundThe last procedure performed by the surgeon in laparoscopic surgery is to extract the specimen through the smallest incision possible. This experiment aimed to explore the maximum diameter of specimens that can be extracted through auxiliary incisions of different lengths and shapes by in vitro physical experiments.Materials and methodsWe used the abdominal wall with the muscle layer, fixed on a square wooden frame, to simulate the human abdominal wall. Then, specimen extraction ports were made with circular, inverted Y-shaped and straight-line incisions of different sizes and lengths, and specimens of different sizes were made from tissues of different species. These specimens were extracted from different incisions with a force gauge. The tension value (N) was measured, and records were made of the length or diameter of the smallest auxiliary incision through which a given specimen could pass, as well as the largest specimen diameter that could pass through an incision of a given size. This experiment provides us with preliminary experience-based knowledge of how to choose the appropriate auxiliary incision for surgical specimen extraction according to the diameter of the specimen.ResultsThe maximum diameters of specimens that could be extracted with circular ostomy diameters of 2.4, 2.7 and 3.3 cm were 4.0, 4.5 and 6.0 cm, respectively. Specimens with diameters of 6.0, 8.0 and 10.0 cm could be extracted through inverted Y-shaped incisions with a length around the umbilicus of 1 cm and an extension length of 1.0, 3.0, and 4.0 cm, respectively. Moreover, these same specimens could be extracted through inverted Y-shaped incisions with a length around the umbilicus of 2 cm and extension lengths of 0.0, 1.0 and 2.0 cm. Tough tissue specimens (made from chicken gizzards) with diameters of 1.0, 2.0, 4.0 and 6.0 cm, respectively, could be removed through straight-line incisions measuring 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 cm in length.ConclusionAlong with preoperative imaging, surgical planning and trocar position, the shape and length of auxiliary incisions can be used to improve the extraction of specimens via laparoscopic surgery.

Project description:BackgroundGastric cancer and colon cancer are rarely seen in clinic, but there are still related reports. For gastric cancer and simultaneous colon cancer, surgical resection is the main treatment. Traditional surgery requires an incision from xiphoid process to pubic symphysis. With the progress of minimally invasive technology, laparoscopic surgery is also used in the treatment of gastric cancer, but also in the abdominal incision to remove specimens and in vitro anastomosis of digestive tract. Taking specimens through the natural cavity as a new surgical method can not only reduce the abdominal incision, but also reduce the occurrence of wound-related complications. Here, we report a patient with gastric cancer and colon cancer who was treated in our hospital.Case summaryWe report a series of patients with gastric cancer and colon cancer. upper abdominal pain was treated in our hospital for 6 months. electronic gastroscopy showed large irregular ulcers on the lesser curvature of the gastric antrum and biopsy showed poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma of the gastric antrum. The enhanced CT of abdomen and pelvis showed irregular thickening of gastric antrum wall, irregular thickening of sigmoid colon wall and no obvious enlarged lymph nodes around. Further electronic enteroscopy showed that the sigmoid colon showed cauliflower protuberance, the intestinal cavity was slightly narrow, the intestinal wall was stiff, and the biopsy pathology showed moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma of the sigmoid colon. No obvious abnormality was found in serological tumor indexes. We diagnosed gastric cancer with sigmoid colon cancer and the patient received Laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy and sigmoidectomy combined with natural orifice specimen extraction surgery. At present, 12 months after operation, no clear tumor recurrence was found in the metastasis.ConclusionWe should improve the understanding of gastric cancer and sigmoid cancer and combine examination with pathology to avoid misdiagnosis as metastatic cancer. Laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy should be performed for tumors with no serosa invasion, body mass index <30 and tumor diameter <6.5 cm. Sigmoidectomy combined with natural nostril sampling is feasible.