Short-term clinical effects and inflammatory response of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery for the treatment of sigmoid and rectal cancer

BACKGROUND: The clinical outcomes and benefits of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) in colorectal cancer have not been fully evaluated comparing to conventional laparoscopic-assisted radical resection. This retrospective study was conducted to investigate the short-term clinical benefits of NOSES versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery for the treatment of sigmoid and rectal cancer. METHODS: A total of 112 patients with sigmoid or rectal cancer were included in this retrospective study. The observation group (n=60) was treated with NOSES, and the control group (n=52) was treated with conventional laparoscopic-assisted radical resection. Following these interventions, the postoperative recovery and inflammatory response indexes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In contrast with the control group, the observation group significantly had longer operation time (t=2.83, P=0.006), but shorter durations for the resumption of a semi-liquid diet (t=2.17, P=0.032), and length of postoperative hospital stay (t=2.74, P=0.007), as well as fewer postoperative incision infections (χ(2)=7.32, P=0.009). Moreover, the levels of immunoglobulin (Ig), including IgG (t=2.29, P=0.024), IgA (t=3.30, P=0.001), and IgM (t=3.38, P=0.001), in the observation group were markedly higher than those within the control group at 3 days postoperatively. Also, the levels of inflammatory indicators including interleukin (IL)-6 (t=4.22, P=5.02E–5), C-reactive protein (CRP) (t=3.73, P=3.5E–4), and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α (t=2.94, P=0.004) in the observation group were considerably lower than those in the control group at 3 days after the operation. CONCLUSIONS: NOSES can improve the postoperative recovery and has benefits in reducing the inflammatory response than conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery.