Efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY BMC Cancer Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1186/s12885-025-13585-3
Zhi-Min Liu, Qi-Jun Yao, Fengyun Pei, Fang He, Yandong Zhao, Jun Huang
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.","authors":"Zhi-Min Liu, Qi-Jun Yao, Fengyun Pei, Fang He, Yandong Zhao, Jun Huang","doi":"10.1186/s12885-025-13585-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laparoscopic radical resection has become the most important treatment for resectable colorectal cancer (CRC). However, there is still a lack of researches on the efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in the treatment of CRC.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>From January 2019 to July 2022, 698 patients with CRC received surgical treatment in the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into RPLS group (n = 220) and CLS group (n = 478) according to their surgical procedures. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust the differences in baseline characteristics. The incidence of perioperative outcomes and survival rates related results were analyzed after PSM.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four hundred twenty-two patients were equally divided into RPLS group (n = 211) and CLS group (n = 211) after PSM. There were no statistically significant differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between the two groups (P value was 0.773 and 0.579 respectively). The perioperative outcomes of patients between the two groups were comparable, except that patients in the RPLS group had a shorter postoperative hospital stay (P value < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For patients with CRC, both RPLS and CLS might be acceptable surgical options. No significant differences in perioperative outcomes, PFS rates and OS rates were observed between the two groups. For certain cases, RPLS was superior to CLS in terms of postoperative recovery.</p>","PeriodicalId":9131,"journal":{"name":"BMC Cancer","volume":"25 1","pages":"187"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786425/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-13585-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic radical resection has become the most important treatment for resectable colorectal cancer (CRC). However, there is still a lack of researches on the efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in the treatment of CRC.

Patients and methods: From January 2019 to July 2022, 698 patients with CRC received surgical treatment in the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into RPLS group (n = 220) and CLS group (n = 478) according to their surgical procedures. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust the differences in baseline characteristics. The incidence of perioperative outcomes and survival rates related results were analyzed after PSM.

Results: Four hundred twenty-two patients were equally divided into RPLS group (n = 211) and CLS group (n = 211) after PSM. There were no statistically significant differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between the two groups (P value was 0.773 and 0.579 respectively). The perioperative outcomes of patients between the two groups were comparable, except that patients in the RPLS group had a shorter postoperative hospital stay (P value < 0.001).

Conclusion: For patients with CRC, both RPLS and CLS might be acceptable surgical options. No significant differences in perioperative outcomes, PFS rates and OS rates were observed between the two groups. For certain cases, RPLS was superior to CLS in terms of postoperative recovery.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
结直肠癌微创腹腔镜手术与常规腹腔镜手术的疗效和安全性。
背景:腹腔镜根治性切除术已成为可切除结直肠癌(CRC)最重要的治疗方法。然而,关于小孔腹腔镜手术(RPLS)与常规腹腔镜手术(CLS)治疗结直肠癌的疗效和安全性的研究仍然缺乏。患者和方法:2019年1月至2022年7月,中山大学附属第六医院698例接受手术治疗的结直肠癌患者纳入回顾性队列研究。根据手术方式分为RPLS组(220例)和CLS组(478例)。倾向得分匹配(PSM)用于调整基线特征的差异。分析PSM术后围手术期结局及生存率相关结果。结果:422例患者经PSM后平均分为RPLS组(211例)和CLS组(211例)。两组患者总生存期(OS)和无进展生存期(PFS)比较,差异无统计学意义(P值分别为0.773和0.579)。除了RPLS组患者术后住院时间较短外,两组患者围手术期结果具有可比性(P值)。结论:对于结直肠癌患者,RPLS和CLS都可能是可接受的手术选择。两组围手术期预后、PFS率和OS率无显著差异。在某些情况下,RPLS在术后恢复方面优于CLS。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1204
审稿时长
6.8 months
期刊介绍: BMC Cancer is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of cancer research, including the pathophysiology, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancers. The journal welcomes submissions concerning molecular and cellular biology, genetics, epidemiology, and clinical trials.
期刊最新文献
Network pharmacology and molecular docking analysis on mechanisms of Euphorbia Lathyris L. seed in treating colorectal cancer. Clinical efficacy of HAIC combined with TACE in patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Integration of Ki67 and Pan-Immune-Inflammation Value (PIV) into a predictive nomogram for pathologic complete response in triple-negative breast cancer : (Ki67 and inflammation in triple-negative breast cancer). Development and validation of a SHAP-explainable preoperative predictive model for microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma. Genetic landscape of Chinese colorectal cancer: insights into germline and somatic mutations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1