Dataset Information

Long-term oncologic outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in the treatment of rectal cancer: a propensity-score matching study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has been increasingly applied in radical surgery of abdominal and pelvic organs, but it is still in the exploratory stage. There is insufficient evidence to prove its efficacy.

Methods

From January 2013 to June 2017, a total of 351 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer were eventually included in this study. Patients who underwent NOSES were assigned to the NOSES group, while patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic assisted resection were assigned as to the LAP group. Propensity score matching was used to align clinicopathological features between the two groups.

Results

From the perioperative data and postoperative follow-up results of both groups, patients in the NOSES group had less intraoperative bleeding (47.0 ± 60.4 ml vs 87.1 ± 101.2 ml, P = 0.011), shorter postoperative gastrointestinal recovery (50.7 ± 27.3 h vs 58.6 ± 28.5 h, P = 0.040), less postoperative analgesic use (36.8% vs 52.8%, P = 0.019), lower postoperative pain scores (P < 0.001), lower rate of postoperative complications (5.7% vs 15.5%, P = 0.020), more satisfaction with body image (P = 0.001) and cosmesis (P < 0.001) postoperatively. The NOSES group had a higher quality of life. Moreover, there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between the two groups.

Conclusion

NOSES could be a safe and reliable technique for radical resection of rectal cancer, with better short-term outcomes than conventional laparoscopy, while long-term survival is not significantly different from that of conventional laparoscopic surgery.

SUBMITTER: Li Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9317461 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundLaparoscopic 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsUpper 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.ConclusionsNOSES 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.

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.