ABSTRACT
Robotic surgical system natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in rectal cancer has been carried out for nearly 10 years, which has entered the mature stage of technology. Development of the surgery in a healthy, orderly, scientific and standardized manner needs systema-tic, strict and whole-process quality control. Based on relevant literatures at home and abroad, and combined with team practical experiences, the authors elaborate on the key points of quality control of robotic surgical system natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in radical resection of rectal cancer, from the aspects of preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative quality control, as well as the quality control of surgeon training and qualifications, in order to provide reference for safe implementation and promotion of the surgery.
ABSTRACT
Objective:To investigate the clinical efficacy of radical resection of rectal cancer with different surgical approaches and influencing factors of postoperative complications.Methods:The retrospective study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 3 418 patients who underwent radical resection of rectal cancer in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University from July 2011 to September 2020 were collected. There were 2 060 males and 1 358 females, aged (61±11)years. Patients meeting the requirements of radical resection and surgical indications underwent surgeries choosing from open radical colorectal cancer surgery, laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery, and natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES). Observation indicators: (1) intraoperative and postoperative conditions of patients undergoing different surgical approaches; (2) comparison of preoperative clinical characteristics in patients undergoing different surgical approaches; (3) comparison of postoperative histopathological characteristics in patients undergoing different surgical approaches; (4) postoperative complications of patients undergoing different surgical approaches; (5) analysis of influencing factors of postoperative complications. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean± SD. Measurement data with skewed distribution were represented as M(range), and comparisons between groups was analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis rank test. Comparison of ordinal data was analyzed using the non-parameter rank sum test. Count data were described as absolute numbers or percentages, and comparison between groups was analyzed using the chi-square test. Multivariate analysis was conducted using the Logistic regression model. Results:(1) Intraoperative and postoperative conditions of patients undergoing different surgical approaches. Of the 3 418 patients, 1 978 cases underwent open radical colorectal cancer sur-gery, 1 028 cases underwent laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery and 412 cases underwent NOSES, respectively. The operation time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, cases with permanent stoma, preventive stoma or without fistula, time to postoperative first flatus, time to postoperative liquid food intake, cases transferred to intensive care unit after surgery, duration of postoperative hospital stay were 145(range, 55?460)minutes, 100(range, 30?1 000)mL, 435, 88, 1 455, 72(range, 10?220)hours, 96(range, 16?296)hours, 158, 10(range, 6?60)days, respectively, in patients undergoing open radical colorectal cancer surgery. The above indicators were 175(range, 80?450)minutes, 50(range, 10?800)mL, 172, 112, 744, 48(range, 14?120)hours, 72(range, 38?140)hours, 17, 9(range, 4?40)days, respectively, in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery and 180(range, 80?400)minutes, 30(range, 5?500)mL, 0, 45, 367, 48 (range, 14?144)hours, 72(range, 15?148)hours, 1, 6(range, 3?30)days, respectively, in patients undergoing NOSES. There were significant differences in the above indicators among the patients undergoing different surgical approaches ( H=291.38, 518.56, χ2=153.82, H=408.86, 282.97, χ2=78.66, H=332.30, P<0.05). (2) Com-parison of preoperative clinical characteristics in patients undergoing different surgical approaches. The gender, age, body mass index, cases with diabetes, cases with hypertension, cases with coronary heart disease, cases with anemia, cases with hypoproteinemia, cases with intestinal obstruction, tumor location, preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen, preoperative CA19-9 showed significant differences among patients undergoing open radical colorectal cancer surgery, laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery and NOSES ( P<0.05). (3) Comparison of postoperative histopathological characteris-tics in patients undergoing different surgical approaches. Tumor histological type, tumor differentiation degree, tumor diameter, number of lymph node detected, nerve invasion, vascular invasion, lymph node invasion, tumor T staging, tumor N staging, tumor M staging, tumor TNM staging showed significant differences among patients undergoing open radical colorectal cancer surgery, laparos-copic radical colorectal cancer surgery and NOSES ( P<0.05). (4) Postoperative complications of patients undergoing different surgical approaches. Cases with postoperative complications as anastomotic leakage, abdominal infection, intestinal obstruction, anastomotic bleeding, incision complications, pulmonary infection, other complications were 52, 21, 309, 8, 130, 51, 59, respectively, in patients undergoing open radical colorectal cancer surgery. The above indicators were 33, 17, 75, 3, 45, 58, 9, respectively, in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery and 13, 4, 8, 0, 11, 10, 15, respectively, in patients undergoing NOSES. There were significant differences in the intes-tinal obstruction, incision complications, pulmonary infection, other complications among patients undergoing different surgical approaches ( χ2=122.56, 13.33, 20.44, 15.59, P<0.05) and there was no significant difference in the anastomotic leakage, abdominal infection, anastomotic bleeding among patients undergoing different surgical approaches ( χ2=0.96, 2.21, 3.08, P>0.05). (5) Analysis of influencing factors of postoperative complications. ① Analysis of influencing factors of intestinal obstruction in patients with radical resection of rectal cancer. Age as 20?39 years and 40?59 years, surgical approach as laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery and NOSES were independent protective factors of intestinal obstruction in patients with radical resection of rectal cancer ( odds ratio=0.46, 0.59, 0.43, 0.13, 95% confidence interval as 0.21?1.00, 0.36?0.96, 0.33?0.56, 0.06?0.27, P<0.05). ② Analysis of influencing factors of incision complications in patients with radical resection of rectal cancer. Body mass index as 24.0?26.9 kg/m 2, surgical approach as laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery and NOSES were independent protective factors of incision complications in patients with radical resection of rectal cancer ( odds ratio=0.24, 0.63, 0.46, 95% confidence interval as 0.11?0.51, 0.44?0.89, 0.24?0.87, P<0.05). ③ Analysis of influencing factors of pulmonary infection in patients with radical resection of rectal cancer. The surgical approach as laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery was an independent risk factor of pulmonary infection in patients with radical resection of rectal cancer ( odds ratio=2.15, 95% confidence interval as 1.46?3.18, P<0.05), and tumor TNM staging as 0?Ⅰ stage was an independent protective factor ( odds ratio=0.10, 95% confidence interval as 0.01?0.88, P<0.05). ④ Analysis of influencing factors of other complica-tions in patients with radical resection of rectal cancer. Age as 20?39 years, 40?59 years, 60?79 years, body mass index as <18.5 kg/m 2, 18.5?23.9 kg/m 2, 24.0?26.9 kg/m 2, 27.0?29.9 kg/m 2, surgical approach as laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery were independent protective factors of other complications in patients with radical resection of rectal cancer ( odds ratio=0.10, 0.29, 0.37, 0.08, 0.22, 0.35, 0.32, 0.29, 95% confidence interval as 0.01?0.81, 0.13?0.64, 0.17?0.78, 0.02?0.40, 0.09?0.52, 0.15?0.83, 0.12?0.89, 0.14?0.59, P<0.05). Conclusions:Compared to laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery and NOSES, open radical colorectal cancer surgery has wide indication and short operation time, but less perioperative treatment effect. Laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery and NOSES can achieve better surgical result and less postoperative complication when patients meeting surgical indications.
ABSTRACT
【Objective】 To explore the feasibility, safety and clinical application value of laparoscopic radical rectal cancer surgery with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) by comparing the postoperative pathological data, surgery-related variables and postoperative recovery between laparoscopic radical rectal cancer surgery with NOSE and laparoscopic-assisted radical rectal cancer surgery. 【Methods】 A retrospective analysis was conducted on 74 patients who underwent radical rectal cancer surgery with anus preservation in the Department of General Surgery of The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University from July 2017 to April 2022. Among them, 38 cases underwent surgery with specimen extraction through an abdominal auxiliary incision (auxiliary incision group), and 36 cases underwent surgery with specimen extraction through a natural orifice (NOSES group). The differences in the efficacy of the two surgeries were evaluated by comparing the postoperative pathological data, surgical variables, and postoperative recovery of the two groups. 【Results】 There were no statistically significant differences in general data and postoperative pathological data between the two groups (all P>0.05). The NOSES group exhibited significantly shorter operative time, time to first flatus, time to first oral intake postoperatively, and postoperative hospital stay compared to the auxiliary incision group (all P0.05). 【Conclusion】 Laparoscopic surgery with NOSE for rectal cancer is safe and feasible with minimally invasive and accelerated recovery, which is worth promoting and applying in clinical practice.
ABSTRACT
Objective:To investigate the effect of everting resection natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) on postoperative function in patients with colorectal cancer.Methods:The clinical data of 78 patients with colorectal cancer treated in Chongqing Bishan District People's Hospital from June 2019 to June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the selected surgical methods, they were divided into the study group (45 cases) and the control group (33 cases). The control group underwent traditional laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer, and the study group underwent everting resection NOSES. Perioperative indicators such as intraoperative bleeding, operation time, postoperative exhaust time and hospitalization time were observed in the two groups. Anal function indicators [anal constriction pressure, fecal incontinence severity score (Wexner score)], coagulation function indicators [activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), prothrombin time (PT)], the levels of inflammatory factors [interleukin-6 (IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP)] and pain factors [nerve growth factor (NGF), prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), neuropeptide Y (NPY)] before and after operation were compared between the two groups.Results:There were no significant differences in intraoperative bleeding and operation time between the two groups ( t values were 1.30 and 0.56, both P > 0.05); the postoperative exhaust time and hospitalization time of the study group were shorter than those of the control group ( t values were 26.88 and 7.42, both P < 0.05). At 3 months after operation, the anal constriction pressure in the two groups was lower than that before operation [study group: (177±10) mmHg (1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa) vs. (184±10) mmHg, t = 3.22, P < 0.001; control group: (178±10) mmHg vs. (184±10) mmHg, t = 2.36, P = 0.020]; the Wexner score was higher than that before operation [study group: (9.0±1.2) points vs. (7.9±1.2) points, t = 4.26, P < 0.001; control group: (10.3±1.2) points vs. (7.9±1.2) points, t = 7.80, P < 0.001], and the Wexner score in the study group was lower than that in the control group ( t = 4.57, P < 0.001). At 1 day after operation, APTT and PT in the two groups were shorter than those before operation (all P < 0.05), and APTT and PT in the study group were shorter than those in the control group [APTT: (26.2±2.2) s vs. (28.3±2.2) s, t = 4.23, P < 0.001; PT: (9.34±0.17) s vs.(11.03±0.41) s, t = 24.93, P < 0.001]. At 1 day after operation, the levels of IL-6 and CRP in the two groups were higher than those before operation (all P < 0.05); the levels of IL-6 and CRP in the study group were lower than those in the control group [IL-6: (8.6± 2.2) ng/L vs. (17.2±3.1) ng/L, t = 14.26, P < 0.001; CRP: (2.16±0.22) mg/L vs. (2.99±0.24) mg/L, t = 15.84, P < 0.001]. At 1 day after operation, the levels of NGF, PGE2 and NPY in the two groups were higher than those before operation (all P < 0.05), and the levels of NGF, PGE2 and NPY in the study group were lower than those in the control group [NGF: (302±7) pg/ml vs. (319±8) pg/ml, t = 9.76, P < 0.001; PGE2: (189±4) ng/L vs. (196±5) ng/L, t = 6.56, P < 0.001; NPY: (164±10) ng/L vs. (177±11) ng/L, t = 5.36, P < 0.001]. Conclusions:Everting resection NOSES can effectively shorten the postoperative exhaust time and hospitalization time of patients with colorectal cancer, have less impact on coagulation function and anal function, reduce the inflammatory reaction and the level of pain factors.
ABSTRACT
In recent years, natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has been widely used in surgery of colorectal cancer. The rapid development of NOSES is mainly attributed to its own great advantages and values, including the reduction of surgical trauma, the acceleration of postoperative recovery and the reduction of adverse psychological reactions for patients. These advantages of NOSES are also important embodiment and perfect interpretation of the organ functional protection. Organ functional preservation is a hot topic in surgery today, and it is also an inevitable requirement for minimally invasive surgery. Essentially, NOSES and organ functional preservation are proposed in the same background, and the goals are highly compatible. NOSES is an important practitioner of organ functional preservation, and organ functional preservation is also the vane of the development of the theoretical system of NOSES. These two items complement each other and together constitute the important element in the development of modern minimally invasive surgery. In order to comprehensively discuss the relationship between NOSES and organ functional protection, we elaborate the important role and value of functional protection in NOSES from five key procedures of colorectal surgery, namely surgical approach, extent of resection, lymph node dissection, digestive tract reconstruction and specimen extraction.
Subject(s)
Humans , Colorectal Neoplasms/surgery , Digestive System Surgical Procedures , Laparoscopy/methods , Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery/methods , Specimen Handling , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Objective: To compare the mid- and long-term outcomes between natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and conventional laparoscopic surgery with abdominal auxiliary incision in the treatment of rectal cancer. Methods: A propensity score matching study was conducted. Patients with pathological diagnosis of rectal adenocarcinoma, preoperative imaging assessment of T1-3 and body mass index <28 kg/m(2) were included. Those who underwent local resection or abdominoperineal resection, had simultaneous multiple primary cancers, malignant intestinal obstruction or perforation, received neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and were unsuitable for laparoscopic surgery were excluded. From January 2017 to January 2019, 264 patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery at the Department of Colorectal Tumor Surgery, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University were enrolled in this study, and divided into the NOSES group (52 cases) and the auxiliary incision group (212 cases). Propensity score matching method was used as 1:1 to match the initial data, and 46 pairs were finally obtained. SPSS 26.0 was used for data analysis, and 2-year disease-free survival, intraoperative and perioperative indicators were compared between the two groups. Results: The tumor short diameter in the NOSES group and the auxiliary incision group was (2.9±0.8) cm and (3.1±1.0) cm (t=0.842, P=0.402) respectively. Other baseline data were also comparable between the two groups(all P>0.05). There were no significant differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay and postoperative complication rate between the two groups (all P>0.05). The time to first flatus [2 (1-6) days vs. 3 (1-6) days, Z=-3.035, P=0.002] and to liquid food intake [3 (1-6) days vs. 3 (2-7) days, Z=-2.587, P=0.010] after surgery in the NOSES group were earlier than those that in the auxiliary incision group. Compared with the auxiliary incision group, the postoperative pain score was lower [3 (2-5) vs. 4 (3-7), Z=-5.477, P<0.001], and the aesthetic score was higher [8 (6-9) vs. 7 (5-8), Z=-6.329, P<0.001] in the NOSES group. The distal resection margin in the NOSES group was longer than that in the auxiliary incised group [(3.7±1.2) cm vs. (2.9±1.4) cm, t=3.287, P<0.001]. There were no significant differences in proximal resection margin the number of harvested lymph nodes and positive rate of circumferential resection margin between the two groups (all P>0.05). The 2-year disease-free survival rate in the NOSES group and the auxiliary incision group was 93.5% and 89.1% respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.466). Conclusions: NOSES has similar mid- and long-term outcomes to conventional laparoscopic surgery and the advantages of better cosmetic effect, less postoperative pain and faster recovery, which is more in line with the concept of minimally invasive and worthy of clinical promotion.
Subject(s)
Humans , Colorectal Surgery , Laparoscopy , Propensity Score , Rectal Neoplasms/surgery , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Objective: To compare the perioperative and recent curative effects of laparoscopic radical resection of low rectal rectal carcinoma by natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) with two-step procedure to turn rectum out from the abdominal cavity and traditional one-step procedure to turn rectum out from abdominal cavity. Methods: The clinical data of 63 patients who were treated by laparoscopic radical resection of low rectal rectal carcmoma by NOSES were analyzed retrospectively. A total of 39 patients were treated with the method of two-step procedure to turn rectum out from the abdominal cavity (two-step procedure group) and 24 patients were treated with the traditional one-step procedure to turn rectum out from the abdominal cavity (traditional one-step procedure group). Results: The maximum tumor diameters, the successful rates, tumor fragmentation rates, operation time, intraperative bleeding loss, postoperative exhaust time, anastomotic leakage rates after operation, and the shortterm-follow-up results of the patients in two groups were recovered The specimens of 39 patients in two-step procedure group were successfully pulled out from the anus, the anastomosis was finishehed after resection, and the NOSES of low rectal carcinoma was successfully completed, while 3 cases were failed of 24 cases in traditional onestep procedure group, the successful rate was decreased (P=0. 024). After the specimen were pulled out from the anus, the fragmentation rate of the patients in two-step procedure group was lower than that in traditional one-step procedure group (P=0. 004). The operation time of the patients in two-step procedure group was less than that in traditional one-step procedure group (t=4. 266, P<0. 01). There were no significant differences in the maximum diameters of tumor (t= - 0.406, P=0. 686), intraoperative bleeding loss (t=1.799, P=0. 075), postoperative exhaust time (t=- 0.144, P= 0.886), postoperative anastomotic leakage rate (P= 1.000) of the patients between two groups. During 3 to 24 months of follow-up, there were no significant differences in the recurrence rate (P = 0. 140) and metastatic rate of carcinoma (P = 0. 36) of the patients between two groups. Conclusion: Two-step procedure to turn rectum out from the abdominal cavity can reduce the pressure on the tumor during turning the rectum out, which can save the operation time and get good short-term curative effect during the radical resection of low rectal carcinoma by NOSES.
ABSTRACT
With the continuous improvement of techniques,mini-invasive surgeries have reached a new peak. There is another great revolution about surgery for colorectal cancer from open surgery to laparoscopic surgery and single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. NOSES for colorectal cancer has the advantages of mild pain, quick recovery and small surgical scar, however, it is still in infancy. There is no unified standard in terms of naming,indications and contraindications,aseptic principle and no-tumor principle,and technology platform, and thus further clinical data support is needed.