前沿 | NOSES技术和传统腹腔镜辅助切除术对结直肠癌患者近期和远期效果的回顾性分析

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Frontiers in Surgery Pub Date : 2024-09-09 DOI:10.3389/fsurg.2024.1444942
Sergei Malev, Hao Zhang, Ziming Yuan, Qingchao Tang, Guiyu Wang, Giorgi Oganezov, Rui Huang, Wang Xishan
{"title":"前沿 | NOSES技术和传统腹腔镜辅助切除术对结直肠癌患者近期和远期效果的回顾性分析","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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

摘要

材料和方法 本研究是一项回顾性对比分析,研究对象是265名接受NOSES技术手术治疗的患者和275名接受腹腔镜辅助(LA)切除术的患者。数据包括术前患者信息、术中发现、术后手术标本病理检查结果、术后早期分析和随访。两组患者的手术时间相似(P = 0.94)。NOSES 介入手术的术中失血量略低于腹腔镜辅助手术(P 0.05)。研究结果表明,NOSES 组胃肠道功能恢复正常的时间较早,开始进食流质食物的时间和术后住院时间略有缩短(P 0.05)。它具有很高的手术效率,不会增加手术干预的风险,减少术后并发症总数,缩短术后住院时间,缩短胃肠功能恢复和开始进食的时间。这项研究证明,与传统的腹腔镜辅助手术相比,NOSES 具有明显的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Frontiers | Retrospective analysis of immediate and long-term results of NOSES technique and conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in patients with colorectal cancer
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Surgery
Frontiers in Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
1872
审稿时长
12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Coverage of large soft tissue defects of the lower limb and foot with superficial inferior epigastric artery flap. Robotic colorectal surgery in Latin America: a systematic review on surgical outcomes. Integrating 3D technology with the Sampaio classification for enhanced percutaneous nephrolithotomy in complex renal calculi treatment. Integrative prognostic modeling for stage III lung adenosquamous carcinoma post-tumor resection: machine learning insights and web-based implementation. Extrarenal renal cell carcinoma in the adrenal region: a case report.
×
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:481959085
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