» Articles » PMID: 33223760

Safety and Survival Outcomes of Transanal Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Using Prolapsing Technique for Patients with Middle- to Low-rectal Cancer

Overview
Specialty Oncology
Date 2020 Nov 23
PMID 33223760
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The transanal approach to specimen collection, combined with the prolapsing technique, is a well-established and minimally invasive surgery for treating rectal cancer. However, reports on outcomes for this approach are sparse. We compared short- and long-term outcomes of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) transanal natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) using the prolapsing technique for patients with middle- to low-rectal cancer.

Methods: From January 2013 to December 2017, we enrolled consecutive patients with middle- to low-rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection. Totally, 50 patients who underwent transanal NOSE using the prolapsing technique were matched with 50 patients who received CLS. Clinical parameters and survival outcomes between the two groups were compared.

Results: Estimated blood loss (29.70±29.28 . 52.80±45.09 mL, P=0.003), time to first flatus (2.50±0.79 . 2.86±0.76, P=0.022), time to liquid diet (3.62±0.64 . 4.20±0.76 d, P<0.001), and the need for analgesics (22%. 48%, P=0.006) were significantly lower for the NOSE group compared to the CLS group. The incidences of overall complications and fecal incontinence were comparable in both groups. After a median follow-up of 44.52 months, the overall local recurrence rate (6% . 5%, P=0.670), 3-year disease-free survival (86.7% . 88.0%, P=0.945) and 3-year overall survival (95.6% . 96.0%, P=0.708), were not significantly different.

Conclusions: For total laparoscopic rectal resection, transanal NOSE using the prolapsing technique is effective and safe, and associated with less trauma and pain, a faster recovery, and similar survival outcomes compared to CLS.

Citing Articles

Meta-analysis of robotic-assisted NOSE versus traditional TWSR in colorectal cancer surgery: postoperative outcomes and efficacy.

Zhan S, Zhu Z, Yu H, Xia Y, Xu T, Wan Z BMC Surg. 2024; 24(1):238.

PMID: 39174999 PMC: 11342584. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-024-02516-x.


Short-term and long-term survival outcomes for transrectal specimen extraction after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a propensity-score matching study.

ReDati D, Li W, Jiang Y, Yang X, Lei C, Wang H Front Oncol. 2024; 13:1252253.

PMID: 38348119 PMC: 10860336. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1252253.


Evaluating short-term and survival outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for colorectal cancer: A single-centre retrospective study.

Zhao F, Zhao W, Xiao T, Wang Z, Huang F, Xing W Front Surg. 2023; 10:1078316.

PMID: 36911615 PMC: 9995366. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1078316.

References
1.
Leung A, Cheung H, Fok B, Chung C, Li M, Tang C . Prospective randomized trial of hybrid NOTES colectomy versus conventional laparoscopic colectomy for left-sided colonic tumors. World J Surg. 2013; 37(11):2678-82. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-013-2163-x. View

2.
Scheidbach H, Schneider C, Konradt J, Barlehner E, Kohler L, Wittekind C . Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and anterior resection with curative intent for carcinoma of the rectum. Surg Endosc. 2002; 16(1):7-13. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-001-8314-4. View

3.
Benlice C, Stocchi L, Costedio M, Gorgun E, Kessler H . Impact of the Specific Extraction-Site Location on the Risk of Incisional Hernia After Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016; 59(8):743-50. DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000632. View

4.
Costantino F, Diana M, Wall J, Leroy J, Mutter D, Marescaux J . Prospective evaluation of peritoneal fluid contamination following transabdominal vs. transanal specimen extraction in laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resections. Surg Endosc. 2011; 26(6):1495-500. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-011-2066-6. View

5.
Ito M, Sugito M, Kobayashi A, Nishizawa Y, Tsunoda Y, Saito N . Relationship between multiple numbers of stapler firings during rectal division and anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal resection. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2008; 23(7):703-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-008-0470-8. View