Frontiers | Retrospective analysis of immediate and long-term results of NOSES technique and conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in patients with colorectal cancer
Sergei Malev, Hao Zhang, Ziming Yuan, Qingchao Tang, Guiyu Wang, Giorgi Oganezov, Rui Huang, Wang Xishan
{"title":"Frontiers | Retrospective analysis of immediate and long-term results of NOSES technique and conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in patients with colorectal cancer","authors":"Sergei Malev, Hao Zhang, Ziming Yuan, Qingchao Tang, Guiyu Wang, Giorgi Oganezov, Rui Huang, Wang Xishan","doi":"10.3389/fsurg.2024.1444942","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionThe aim of research was to study the feasibility and safety of surgery providing specimen extraction through natural orifices in patients with colorectal cancer.Materials and methodsThis study is a comparative retrospective analysis of findings obtained from 265 patients who underwent surgical treatment using NOSES technique and 275 patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted (LA) resection. Data included preoperative patients’ information, intraoperative findings, results of postoperative pathological examination of surgical specimens, early postoperative period analysis, and follow-up.ResultsBoth groups were comparable in terms of gender, age and BMI. The duration of surgery was similar in both groups (p = 0.94). Intraoperative blood loss under NOSES interventions was slightly lower than in laparoscopic-assisted surgeries (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the number of lymph nodes removed and anal function scores between the two groups (p > 0.05). It was revealed that in the NOSES group, the function of the gastrointestinal tract normalized at an earlier time, slightly the time to start liquid food intake and the duration of postoperative hospital stay were reduced (p < 0.001). A statistically significant difference between groups was found in complications, such as pneumonia (p = 0.03). The absolute number of complications was observed more often in the LA surgery group (10.4%) than in the NOSES group (5.8%). Local recurrence was less common in the NOSES group (p = 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in disease progression (p = 0.16). When analyzing disease-free and overall survival rate in this study, there was no statistically significant difference between the two surgical techniques in terms of their effect on postoperative survival (p > 0.05).ConclusionThe results of this study demonstrate that NOSES technique is a relatively safe and effective surgical option in patients with colorectal cancer. It has high surgical efficiency providing no increased risk of surgical intervention, reducing total number of postoperative complications, reducing duration of postoperative hospital stay, reducing the time for gastrointestinal function recovery and the start of food intake. This study supports that NOSES has clear advantages over conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery.","PeriodicalId":12564,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Surgery","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1444942","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
IntroductionThe aim of research was to study the feasibility and safety of surgery providing specimen extraction through natural orifices in patients with colorectal cancer.Materials and methodsThis study is a comparative retrospective analysis of findings obtained from 265 patients who underwent surgical treatment using NOSES technique and 275 patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted (LA) resection. Data included preoperative patients’ information, intraoperative findings, results of postoperative pathological examination of surgical specimens, early postoperative period analysis, and follow-up.ResultsBoth groups were comparable in terms of gender, age and BMI. The duration of surgery was similar in both groups (p = 0.94). Intraoperative blood loss under NOSES interventions was slightly lower than in laparoscopic-assisted surgeries (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the number of lymph nodes removed and anal function scores between the two groups (p > 0.05). It was revealed that in the NOSES group, the function of the gastrointestinal tract normalized at an earlier time, slightly the time to start liquid food intake and the duration of postoperative hospital stay were reduced (p < 0.001). A statistically significant difference between groups was found in complications, such as pneumonia (p = 0.03). The absolute number of complications was observed more often in the LA surgery group (10.4%) than in the NOSES group (5.8%). Local recurrence was less common in the NOSES group (p = 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in disease progression (p = 0.16). When analyzing disease-free and overall survival rate in this study, there was no statistically significant difference between the two surgical techniques in terms of their effect on postoperative survival (p > 0.05).ConclusionThe results of this study demonstrate that NOSES technique is a relatively safe and effective surgical option in patients with colorectal cancer. It has high surgical efficiency providing no increased risk of surgical intervention, reducing total number of postoperative complications, reducing duration of postoperative hospital stay, reducing the time for gastrointestinal function recovery and the start of food intake. This study supports that NOSES has clear advantages over conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery.
期刊介绍:
Evidence of surgical interventions go back to prehistoric times. Since then, the field of surgery has developed into a complex array of specialties and procedures, particularly with the advent of microsurgery, lasers and minimally invasive techniques. The advanced skills now required from surgeons has led to ever increasing specialization, though these still share important fundamental principles.
Frontiers in Surgery is the umbrella journal representing the publication interests of all surgical specialties. It is divided into several “Specialty Sections” listed below. All these sections have their own Specialty Chief Editor, Editorial Board and homepage, but all articles carry the citation Frontiers in Surgery.
Frontiers in Surgery calls upon medical professionals and scientists from all surgical specialties to publish their experimental and clinical studies in this journal. By assembling all surgical specialties, which nonetheless retain their independence, under the common umbrella of Frontiers in Surgery, a powerful publication venue is created. Since there is often overlap and common ground between the different surgical specialties, assembly of all surgical disciplines into a single journal will foster a collaborative dialogue amongst the surgical community. This means that publications, which are also of interest to other surgical specialties, will reach a wider audience and have greater impact.
The aim of this multidisciplinary journal is to create a discussion and knowledge platform of advances and research findings in surgical practice today to continuously improve clinical management of patients and foster innovation in this field.