Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhu, Yihao, Xiong, Huan, Chen, Yinggang, Liu, Zheng, Jiang, Zheng, Huang, Rui, Gao, Feng, Zhang, Qian, Wang, Meng, Jin, Yinghu, Qiao, Tianyu, Ma, Tianyi, Hu, Hanqing, Wang, Xishan, Tang, Qingchao, Wang, Guiyu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8085046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33927293
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88790-8
_version_ 1783686265294553088
author Zhu, Yihao
Xiong, Huan
Chen, Yinggang
Liu, Zheng
Jiang, Zheng
Huang, Rui
Gao, Feng
Zhang, Qian
Wang, Meng
Jin, Yinghu
Qiao, Tianyu
Ma, Tianyi
Hu, Hanqing
Wang, Xishan
Tang, Qingchao
Wang, Guiyu
author_facet Zhu, Yihao
Xiong, Huan
Chen, Yinggang
Liu, Zheng
Jiang, Zheng
Huang, Rui
Gao, Feng
Zhang, Qian
Wang, Meng
Jin, Yinghu
Qiao, Tianyu
Ma, Tianyi
Hu, Hanqing
Wang, Xishan
Tang, Qingchao
Wang, Guiyu
author_sort Zhu, Yihao
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8085046
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80850462021-05-03 Comparison of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in the treatment effects of low rectal cancer Zhu, Yihao Xiong, Huan Chen, Yinggang Liu, Zheng Jiang, Zheng Huang, Rui Gao, Feng Zhang, Qian Wang, Meng Jin, Yinghu Qiao, Tianyu Ma, Tianyi Hu, Hanqing Wang, Xishan Tang, Qingchao Wang, Guiyu Sci Rep Article 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. Nature Publishing Group UK 2021-04-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8085046/ /pubmed/33927293 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88790-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Zhu, Yihao
Xiong, Huan
Chen, Yinggang
Liu, Zheng
Jiang, Zheng
Huang, Rui
Gao, Feng
Zhang, Qian
Wang, Meng
Jin, Yinghu
Qiao, Tianyu
Ma, Tianyi
Hu, Hanqing
Wang, Xishan
Tang, Qingchao
Wang, Guiyu
Comparison of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in the treatment effects of low rectal cancer
title Comparison of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in the treatment effects of low rectal cancer
title_full Comparison of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in the treatment effects of low rectal cancer
title_fullStr Comparison of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in the treatment effects of low rectal cancer
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in the treatment effects of low rectal cancer
title_short Comparison of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in the treatment effects of low rectal cancer
title_sort comparison of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in the treatment effects of low rectal cancer
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8085046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33927293
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88790-8
work_keys_str_mv AT zhuyihao comparisonofnaturalorificespecimenextractionsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicassistedresectioninthetreatmenteffectsoflowrectalcancer
AT xionghuan comparisonofnaturalorificespecimenextractionsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicassistedresectioninthetreatmenteffectsoflowrectalcancer
AT chenyinggang comparisonofnaturalorificespecimenextractionsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicassistedresectioninthetreatmenteffectsoflowrectalcancer
AT liuzheng comparisonofnaturalorificespecimenextractionsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicassistedresectioninthetreatmenteffectsoflowrectalcancer
AT jiangzheng comparisonofnaturalorificespecimenextractionsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicassistedresectioninthetreatmenteffectsoflowrectalcancer
AT huangrui comparisonofnaturalorificespecimenextractionsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicassistedresectioninthetreatmenteffectsoflowrectalcancer
AT gaofeng comparisonofnaturalorificespecimenextractionsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicassistedresectioninthetreatmenteffectsoflowrectalcancer
AT zhangqian comparisonofnaturalorificespecimenextractionsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicassistedresectioninthetreatmenteffectsoflowrectalcancer
AT wangmeng comparisonofnaturalorificespecimenextractionsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicassistedresectioninthetreatmenteffectsoflowrectalcancer
AT jinyinghu comparisonofnaturalorificespecimenextractionsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicassistedresectioninthetreatmenteffectsoflowrectalcancer
AT qiaotianyu comparisonofnaturalorificespecimenextractionsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicassistedresectioninthetreatmenteffectsoflowrectalcancer
AT matianyi comparisonofnaturalorificespecimenextractionsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicassistedresectioninthetreatmenteffectsoflowrectalcancer
AT huhanqing comparisonofnaturalorificespecimenextractionsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicassistedresectioninthetreatmenteffectsoflowrectalcancer
AT wangxishan comparisonofnaturalorificespecimenextractionsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicassistedresectioninthetreatmenteffectsoflowrectalcancer
AT tangqingchao comparisonofnaturalorificespecimenextractionsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicassistedresectioninthetreatmenteffectsoflowrectalcancer
AT wangguiyu comparisonofnaturalorificespecimenextractionsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicassistedresectioninthetreatmenteffectsoflowrectalcancer