ABSTRACT
Objective To evaluate the safety, feasibility and other potential advantages of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for tubal pregnancy. Methods We manually searched Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, web of science, CNKI and China Biology Medicine for the relevant references about comparison of single-port laparoscopic salpingectomy with multi-port laparoscopic salpingectomy in the treatment of tubal pregnancy. The quality of the studies was evaluated, then meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software. Result Eventually, 2 RCTS and 14 retrospective studies including a total of 1541 cases were identi昀ed. The results of the meta-analysis for LESS versus CLS were as follows: a longer operative time [WMD=8.54, 95%CI (2.43, 14.64), P = 0.006], no significant differences in terms of total complications [OR= 0.68, 95%CI (0.27,1.71), P = 0.410]/operative blood loss [WMD = -0.01, 95%CI (-2.51,2.48), P = 0.990]/gastrointestinal function recovery time [WMD = -0.45, 95%CI (-1.72,0.82), P = 0.490], but shorter hospital stay [WMD=-0.40, 95% (-0.75, -0.06), P = 0.020], less postoperative analgesic treatment [OR= 0.38, 95%CI (0.22,0.67), P = 0.000]. Conclusions LESS for surgical treatment of tubal pregnancy is safe and feasible with shorter hospitalstay, less postoperative pain. LESS may therefore be a feasible alternative of CLS in the surgical approach of tubal pregnancy.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colon cancer is one of the most frequent procedures performed in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. In this study, we analyzed clinical and long-term oncological outcomes of left-sided colon cancer patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS).METHODS: A total of 172 CLS patients and 72 HALS patients for left-sided colon cancer from July 2001 to December 2011 were included in this study. The collected data included the clinical and oncological outcomes. We analyzed overall survival and disease-free survival by tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) stage.RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and male patients were predominant. The mean follow-up period was 58.1 months. The number of patients that belong in each TNM stage 0, I, II, III, and IV was as follows: 17 (7%), 47 (19.2%), 70 (28.7%), 80 (32.8%), and 30 (12.3%), respectively. Overall 5-year survival rate for TNM stage I, II, III, and IV was 87.1%, 82.8%, 82%, and 12%, respectively. Overall 5-year survival rate for CLS group and HALS group was 90.2% and 66.7%, 86.5% and 77%, 88.7% and 67.4%, and 18.9% and 0%, respectively. Disease-free 5-year survival rate for TNM stage I, II, and III was 97.7%, 90.7%, and 72.8%, respectively. Disease-free 5-year survival rate for CLS group and HALS group was 97.3% and 100%, 100% and 78.8%, and 81% and 55.1%, respectively.CONCLUSION: These data show the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colon cancer in terms of long-term oncological outcomes.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Colon , Colonic Neoplasms , Colorectal Surgery , Disease-Free Survival , Follow-Up Studies , Hand-Assisted Laparoscopy , Laparoscopy , Neoplasm Metastasis , Survival RateABSTRACT
Purpose: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is technically demanding and needs a longer learning curve than open surgery. HALS (hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery) is a useful alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) because of its palpability and hand dissection. We compared the learning curves between HALS and CLS for colorectal surgery. Methods: A prospective study without randomization was conducted with the participation of two colorectal surgeons who had not experienced a laparoscopic colorectal operation. The collected data included operative features, oncologic outcomes, and early clinical outcomes. Fifty patients were enrolled in each group, the HALS group and the CLS group. Results: None of the operations converted to open surgery. The operative time was significantly shorter in the HALS group than in the CLS group (149.6+/-34.6 minutes versus 179.1+/-36.5 minutes, P<0.001). On a subgroup analysis of the operative time in the anterior resection, the operative time was consistent after the 13th operation in HALS group. However, in CLS group, there was a continuous fluctuation of the operative time until 25 cases. In regard to the oncologic outcome, the numbers of total harvested lymph nodes and the proximal and the distal margins in the anterior resection showed no statistical differences (P=0.400, P=0.908, and P=0.073, respectively). The early clinical results were similar in both groups. Conclusions: In the learning curve study, the HALS group had a shorter operative time and reached a learning curve plateau earlier than the CLS group. Other parameters, such as the oncologic results and the early postoperative clinical outcomes, showed no differences between the two groups.