Efficacy Comparison of Optimal Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction for Robotic Middle Rectal Cancer Resection in Women: Transanal or Transvaginal Orifice

Overview

Journal World J Surg Oncol

Publisher Biomed Central

Date 2025 Jan 25

PMID 39856731

Authors

Yao Yao

Jiarui Ding

Houqiong Ju

Lingling Yang

Yang Liu

Yahang Liang

Yuli Yuan

Taiyuan Li

Xiong Lei

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to determine the optimal natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) method for robotic-assisted mid-rectal cancer resection in women.

Methods: This retrospective propensity score-matched (PSM) study was to analyze the clinical data prospectively collected from female rectal cancer patients who underwent either robotic-assisted transvaginal specimen extraction (RATV) or robotic-assisted transanal specimen extraction (RATA) at our center between June 2016 and December 2022. The main outcome measures were urinary, anal, and sexual function. Disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were also included .

Results: Anal function, assessed by the Wexner score, was better in the RATV group than in the RATA group (P = 0.034). Additionally, pre-menopausal women in RATV group exhibited superior anal function over those in RATA group (P = 0.031). There was no statistically significant difference in urinary function between the groups for both pre-menopausal and peri-menopausal patients (P = 0.711, P = 0.106). No difference was observed in sexual function between the two groups (P = 0.351); however, pre-menopausal patients in RATA group had better sexual function than those in RATV group (P = 0.045). Univariate logistic regression analysis showed surgical procedure was not a significant factor for the occurrence of sexual dysfunction. There were no significant difference in DFS (P = 0.845)and OS (P = 0.642) between the two groups.

Conclusion: Though the postoperative efficacy of the RATA and RATV was equivalent on urinary and sexual function, RATV is an optimal natural orifice specimen extraction for robotic middle rectal cancer resection in women based on anal function.

References

Tawadros P, Paquette I, Hanly A, Mellgren A, Rothenberger D, Madoff R . Adenocarcinoma of the rectum in patients under age 40 is increasing: impact of signet-ring cell histology. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015; 58(5):474-8. DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000318. View

Shin S, Park Y, Shin Y, Choi H, Park J, Lyu Y . A De-identification method for bilingual clinical texts of various note types. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30(1):7-15. PMC: 4278030. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.1.7. View

Park S, Kim N . The Role of Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Overcoming Technical Challenges in Laparoscopic Surgery by Advanced Techniques. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30(7):837-46. PMC: 4479934. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.7.837. View

Yeheyis E, Kassa S, Yeshitela H, Bekele A . Intraoperative hypotension is not associated with adverse short-term postoperative outcomes after esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients. BMC Surg. 2021; 21(1):1. PMC: 7777395. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-020-01015-z. View

Jirapinyo P, Sethi A, Abu Dayyeh B, Bhutani M, Chandrasekhara V, Kumta N . Devices and techniques for flexible endoscopic management of Zenker's diverticulum (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2021; 94(1):3-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.02.020. View

Feng Q, Yuan W, Li T, Tang B, Jia B, Zhou Y . Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer (REAL): short-term outcomes of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022; 7(11):991-1004. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00248-5. View

David M, Bakrin N, Salleron J, Kaminsky M, Bereder J, Tuech J . Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) vs CRS alone for treatment of endometrial cancer with peritoneal metastases: a multi-institutional study from PSOGI and BIG RENAPE groups. BMC Surg. 2022; 22(1):1. PMC: 8742414. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-021-01449-z. View

Bedirli A, Salman B, Yuksel O . Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Resection for Mid and Low Rectal Cancers. JSLS. 2016; 20(1). PMC: 4824844. DOI: 10.4293/JSLS.2015.00110. View

Benson A, Venook A, Al-Hawary M, Azad N, Chen Y, Ciombor K . Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022; 20(10):1139-1167. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2022.0051. View

Park E, Cho M, Baek S, Hur H, Min B, Baik S . Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg. 2014; 261(1):129-37. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000613. View

Avery K, Donovan J, Peters T, Shaw C, Gotoh M, Abrams P . ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2004; 23(4):322-30. DOI: 10.1002/nau.20041. View

Leitao Jr M, Kreaden U, Laudone V, Park B, Pappou E, Davis J . The RECOURSE Study: Long-term Oncologic Outcomes Associated With Robotically Assisted Minimally Invasive Procedures for Endometrial, Cervical, Colorectal, Lung, or Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2022; 277(3):387-396. PMC: 9905254. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005698. View

Lurje G, Raptis D, Steinemann D, Amygdalos I, Kambakamba P, Petrowsky H . Cosmesis and Body Image in Patients Undergoing Single-port Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Multicenter Double-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial (SPOCC-trial). Ann Surg. 2015; 262(5):728-34. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001474. View

10.

Lei X, Yang L, Huang Z, Shi H, Zhou Z, Tang C . No beneficial effect on survival but a decrease in postoperative complications in patients with rectal cancer undergoing robotic surgery: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Surg. 2021; 21(1):355. PMC: 8477518. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-021-01309-w. View

11.

Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel R, Soerjomataram I . Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024; 74(3):229-263. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21834. View

12.

Keller D, Berho M, Perez R, Wexner S, Chand M . The multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020; 17(7):414-429. DOI: 10.1038/s41575-020-0275-y. View

13.

Tai L, de Souza C, Belanger S, Ly L, Alkayyal A, Zhang J . Preventing postoperative metastatic disease by inhibiting surgery-induced dysfunction in natural killer cells. Cancer Res. 2012; 73(1):97-107. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-1993. View

14.

Qaderi S, Dickman P, de Wilt J, Verhoeven R . Conditional Survival and Cure of Patients With Colon or Rectal Cancer: A Population-Based Study. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020; 18(9):1230-1237. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7568. View

15.

Isidori A, Pozza C, Esposito K, Giugliano D, Morano S, Vignozzi L . Development and validation of a 6-item version of the female sexual function index (FSFI) as a diagnostic tool for female sexual dysfunction. J Sex Med. 2009; 7(3):1139-46. DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01635.x. View

16.

JORGE J, Wexner S . Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993; 36(1):77-97. DOI: 10.1007/BF02050307. View