Laparoscopy-Assisted Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction to Treat Tumors of the Sigmoid Colon and Rectum: The Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of a Retrospective Study

Short-term outcomes of Transrectal Natural Orifice Specimen extraction compared with conventional minimally invasive surgery for selected patients with colorectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis and literature review

PURPOSE

Conventional minimally invasive surgery requires mini-laparotomy to extract the pathological specimen. However, by using a natural orifice as the delivery route, natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery avoids the need for a large incision. This study analyzed the short-term outcome of NOSE compared with conventional mini-laparotomy (CL) for colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 1,189 patients who underwent surgery for primary colorectal cancer between the cecum and upper rectum. Propensity score analyses were applied to the NOSE and CL groups in a 1:1 matched cohort.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, each group included 201 patients. The NOSE group and CL group did not differ significantly in terms of baseline characteristics. Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were comparable. Compared with the CL group, the NOSE group experienced a shorter time to first flatus (1.6 ± 0.8 vs. 2.0 ± 1.2 days, p < 0.001), first stool (2.7 ± 1.5 vs. 4.1 ± 1.9, p < 0.001), liquid diet (2.3 ± 1.3 vs. 3.6 ± 1.8 days, p < 0.001), soft diet (3.9 ± 2.0 vs. 5.2 ± 1.9 days, p < 0.001) and a shorter hospital stay (5.1 ± 3.5 vs. 7.4 ± 4.8 days, p < 0.001). The NOSE group exhibited lower mean pain intensity and lower highest pain intensity on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3.

CONCLUSION

NOSE has several advantages over conventional mini-laparotomy following minimally invasive surgery for colon cancer. These advantages include reduced time to oral intake, shorter hospital stays, and less postoperative pain. NOSE can be adopted and applied to highly selective patients without additional risk of short-term complications.

Lone-Star retractor perineal exposure method for laparoscopic abdominal perineal resection of rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The abdominal perineal resection (APR), historically referred to as Mile's procedure, stands as a time-honored surgical intervention for rectal cancer management. Advancements in surgical techniques and the advent of neoadjuvant therapies have significantly improved the rate of sphincter preservation among patients afflicted with rectal cancer, including those with ultralow rectal cancer. Despite these improvements, APR maintains its irreplaceable role in the clinical landscape, particularly for cases involving low rectal cancer with encroachment on the external anal sphincter or levator ani muscles. Optimal perineal exposure stands as a pivotal phase in APR, given that the precision of this maneuver is directly correlated with both the safety of the surgery and the patient's subsequent long-term prognosis.

AIM

To evaluate the value of Lone-Star retractor (LSR) perineal exposure method in the treatment for laparoscopic APR of rectal cancer.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of 38 patients with rectal cancer at Anqing Municipal Hospital from January 2020 to December 2023, including 20 patients who underwent the APR procedure with a LSR perineal exposure method (LSR group) and 18 patients who underwent the APR procedure with a conventional perineal exposure method (control group). In the LSR group, following incision of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, the LSR was placed and dynamically adjusted according to the surgical plane to fully expose the perineal operative field.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients underwent laparoscopic APR, none of whom were found to have distant metastasis upon intraoperative exploration. Perineal blood loss, the postoperative hospital stays and the wound pain scores in the LSR group were significantly lower than those in the control group. A single surgeon completed the perineal operation significantly more often in the LSR group than in the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of infection via the perineal incision in the LSR group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). No cases of distant metastasis or local recurrence were found among the patients at the postoperative follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The application of the LSR technique might be helpful for performing perineal exposure during APR for rectal cancer and could reduce the incidence of perineal complications, shorten the postoperative hospital stay, improve postoperative pain, and allow one surgeon to perform the perineal operation.

A novel perineal exposure method in laparoscopic abdominal perineal resection of rectal cancer: a case series study

BACKGROUND

Abdominal perineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer, also known as Mile's procedure, is a classic procedure for the treatment of rectal cancer. Through the improvement of surgical skills and neoadjuvant therapy, the sphincter-preserving rate in rectal cancer patients has improved, even in patients with ultralow rectal cancer who underwent APR in the past. However, APR cannot be completely replaced by low anterior resection (LAR) in reality. APR still has its indications, when the tumor affects the external sphincter, etc. Good perineal exposure in APR is difficult and can seriously affect surgical safety and the long-term prognosis.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of 16 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent APR at Anqing Municipal Hospital from January 2022 to April 2023, including 11 males and 5 females, with an average age of 64.8 ± 10.3 years. The perineal operation was completed with the Lone-Star® retractor-assisted (LSRA) exposure method. After incising the skin and subcutaneous tissue, a Lone-Star® retractor was placed, and the incision was retracted in surrounding directions with 8 small retractors, which facilitated the freeing of deep tissues. We dynamically adjusted the retractor according to the plane to fully expose the surgical field.

RESULTS

All 16 patients underwent laparoscopic-assisted APR successfully. Thirteen procedures were performed independently by a single person, and the others were completed by two persons due to intraoperative arterial hemostasis. All specimens were free of perforation and had a negative circumferential resection margin (CRM). Postoperative complications occurred in 4 patients, including urinary retention in 1 patient, pulmonary infection in 1 patient, intestinal adhesion in 1 patient and peristomal dermatitis in 1 patient, and were graded as ClavienDindo grade 3 or lower and cured. No distant metastasis or local recurrence was found for any of the patients in the postoperative follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of the LSRA exposure method might be helpful for perineal exposure during APR for rectal cancer, which could improve intraoperative safety and surgical efficiency, achieve one-person operation, and increase the comfort of operators.

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional robotic colorectal cancer resection: a propensity score matching study

Robotic resection is widely used to treat colorectal cancer. Although the novel natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) results in less trauma, its safety and effectiveness are relatively unknown. In the present study, we used propensity score matching to compare the effectiveness and safety of NOSES and robotic resection for treating colorectal cancer. Present retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent robotic colon and rectal cancer surgery between January 2016 and December 2019 at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. The intraoperative time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative recovery, postoperative complications, and survival status of the conventional robotic colorectal cancer resection (CRR) (78 patients) and NOSES (89 patients) groups were compared. These results showed that no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of early postoperative complications, operation time, and the number of lymph nodes dissected. Compared with the CRR group, NOSES group had shorter postoperative exhaust time [3.06 (0.76) vs. 3.53 (0.92)], earlier eating time [4.12 (1.08) vs. 4.86 (1.73)], lesser intraoperative bleeding [51.23 (26.74) vs. 67.82 (43.44)], lesser degree of pain [80.8% vs. 55.1%], and shorter length of hospital stay [8.73 (2.02) vs. 9.50 (3.45)]. All these parameters were statistically significant (P < 0.05). However, no significant differences were observed in the 3-year overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate between both groups (P > 0.05). Collectively, robotic NOSES is a safe and effective approach for treating rectal and sigmoid colon cancers, could decrease intraoperative bleeding and postoperative complications, and accelerate the speed of intestinal function recovery.

Preliminary surgical outcomes of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with transrectal specimen extraction: a propensity score matching study of 120 cases (with video)

Background

Compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has many advantages. Laparoscopic right colectomy with transvaginal specimen extraction has been reported, but the safety and feasibility of transrectal specimen extraction in male patients with ascending colon cancer remain to be verified. This study aimed to preliminarily evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with transrectal specimen extraction.

Methods

The study was conducted at a single tertiary medical center in China. A total of 494 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic right colectomy between September 2018 and September 2020 were included. Transrectal specimen extraction was performed in 40 male patients (the NOSES group). Patients in the NOSES group were matched to the conventional laparoscopic group using propensity score matching at a 1:2 ratio. Short-term and long-term outcomes between the two groups were compared and evaluated.

Results

Forty patients in the NOSES group and 80 patients in the conventional laparoscopic group were matched for analysis. Baseline characteristics were balanced after propensity matching. The operative features, including operating time, intraoperative bleeding, and the number of harvested lymph nodes, were statistically comparable in both groups. In terms of post-operative recovery, patients in the NOSES group showed preferable outcomes, as evidenced by less post-operative pain and faster return to flatus, defecation, and discharge. The post-operative complications rate, according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system, was similar in both groups. No differences in overall survival or disease-free survival were observed between the two groups.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic right colectomy with transrectal specimen extraction is oncologically safe. Compared with conventional laparoscopic right colectomy, it can reduce post-operative pain, accelerate post-operative recovery, shorten the hospital stay, and achieve better cosmetic effect.

A nomogram for predicting feasibility of laparoscopic anterior resection with trans-rectal specimen extraction (NOSES) in patients with upper rectal cancer

Background

Laparoscopic anterior resection with trans-rectal specimen extraction (NOSES) has been demonstrated as a safe and effective technique in appropriate patients with upper rectal cancer (RC). However, improper selection of RC candidates for NOSES may lead to potential surgical and oncological unsafety as well as complications such as bacteria contamination and anastomotic leak. Unfortunately, no tools are available for evaluating the risk and excluding improper cases before surgery. This study aims to estimate its clinical relevancy and to investigate independent clinical-pathological predictors for identifying candidates for NOSES in patients with upper RC and to develop a validated scoring nomogram to facilitate clinical decision making.

Methods

The study was performed at Shanghai East hospital, a tertiary medical center and teaching hospital. 111 eligible patients with upper RC who underwent elective laparoscopic anterior resection between February and October of 2017 were included in the final analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare characteristics between the two surgical techniques. Odds ratios (OR) were determined by logistic regression analyses to identify and quantify the clinical relevancy and ability of predictors for identifying NOSES candidate. The nomogram was constructed and characterized by c-index, calibration, bootstrapping validation, ROC curve analysis, and decision curve analysis.

Results

Upper RC patients with successful NOSES tended to be featured with female gender, negative preoperative CEA/CA19-9, decreased mesorectum length (MRL), ratio of diameter (ROD) and ratio of area (ROA) values, while no significant statistical correlations were observed with age, body mass index (BMI), tumor location, and tumor-related biological characteristics (ie., vascular invasion, lymph node count, TNM stages). Furthermore, the two techniques exhibited comparably low incidence of perioperative complications and achieved similar functional results under the standard procedures. The nomogram incorporating three independent preoperative predictors including gender, CEA status and ROD showed a high c-index of 0.814 and considerable reliability, accuracy and clinical net benefit.

Conclusions

NOSES for patients with upper RC is multifactorial; while it is a safe and efficient technique if used properly. The nomogram is useful for patient evaluation in the future.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01290-4.

Comparison of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in the treatment effects of low rectal cancer

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is an intra-abdominal procedure that does not require an auxiliary incision to take a surgical sample from the abdominal wall through the natural orifice, but there are few systematic clinical studies on it. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of NOSES. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data and follow-up of 165 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent NOSES or conventional laparoscopic surgery at our center from January 2013 to June 2015. From the perioperative data and postoperative follow-up results of both groups, patients in the NOSES group had less intraoperative bleeding (49.3 ± 55.8 ml vs. 75.1 ± 57.3 ml, p = 0.02), shorter postoperative gastrointestinal recovery (42.3 ± 15.5 h vs. 50.1 ± 17.0 h, p = 0.01), less postoperative analgesic use (35.6% vs. 57.6%, p = 0.02), lower postoperative pain scores, lower rate of postoperative complications (6.8% vs. 25.4%, p = 0.01), better satisfaction of the image and cosmesis of the abdominal wall postoperatively, and higher quality of life. Moreover, there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between two groups. Overall, NOSES is a safe and reliable minimally invasive surgical technique for patients with low rectal cancer.

Natural orifice specimen extraction for colorectal surgery: Early adoption in a Western population

AIM

Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) challenges the limits of minimally invasive colorectal surgery by exploiting a natural opening for specimen delivery. Technically challenging, it is less painful, requires smaller wounds and abolishes the possibility of incisional hernia. These advantages of NOSE are seen in the obese (body mass index [BMI] >30 kg/m² ). This audit aims to demonstrate the feasibility of NOSE colectomy in an Australian population.

METHOD

Prospective data collected from 2007 to the present were retrospectively analysed. Only patients with mucosally benign colorectal conditions were included: complex diverticulosis, post-malignant polypectomy and volvulus. Left sided mucosal malignancies were excluded. Study end-points included postoperative length of stay, anastomotic leak rate and wound complications.

RESULTS

In total, 159 patients underwent NOSE, mean age 59 years (19-88), mean BMI 28.2 kg/m² (17-45). Ten (6.2%) patients developed retroperitoneal small bowel herniation; seven required further surgery. There were five (3.1%) anastomotic leaks, seven (4.4%) postoperative ileus and three (1.9%) anastomotic bleeds. One (0.6%) patient had a superficial wound infection. There were no port site hernias. Patients with BMI <30 kg/m² (98 patients) and BMI >30 kg/m² (59 patients) were compared; there was no difference in anastomotic leak rate (P = 0.60), complication rate (P = 0.71) and length of stay (P = 0.63). However, duration of operation increased with BMI (P = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

This large series of NOSE colectomy from Australia suggests that NOSE is comparable to conventional laparoscopic colectomy in terms of postoperative outcome. Given that obesity has not featured in the NOSE literature, our study suggests that NOSE, for benign disease, is safe in obese patients, without added morbidity.

Effect of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer with N. O. S. E. on recovery and prognosis of patients

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) on the recovery and quality of life (QOL) of patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ninety-two eligible patients were randomly assigned into two groups: the traditional laparoscopy group (L group, n = 46) and the laparoscopic transanal specimen extraction group (NL group, n = 46). General data, surgery-related indicators, postoperative recovery, and prognosis were compared and analyzed between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 46 patients in each group were enrolled in this study. The general data and surgery-related indicators were comparable between the two groups (all p > .05). There were no significant differences in the time of first flatus, bleeding, obstruction, constipation, and infectious complications between the two groups (all p > .05). The differences in the incidence of postoperative diarrhea, pain degree, and satisfaction on the aesthetics of the abdominal wall showed significant differences (χ² = 6.133, p = .013; χ² = 12.116, p = .017; χ² = 13.463, p = .004). The postoperative follow-up time was 3-53 months. There were no significant differences in the postoperative hospital stay, medical costs, hospital readmission rate, incidence of incisional hernia, overall survival, disease-free survival, and QOL between the two groups (all p > .05). Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery with NOSE for eligible patients with CRC was a feasible choice.

Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone versus robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction: a matched analysis

Robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction is a recently developed minimally invasive surgery used in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. However, its safety and feasibility remain undiscussed and controversial. This study reported the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors pertaining to traditional robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone against that of robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction to provide a discussion on this issue. 49 patients who underwent robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction and 49 matched patients who underwent conventional robotic assisted rectal cancer resection were systematically analyzed in this study. Regarding the baseline characteristics, after matching, no significant differences were observed between the natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) group and the robotic assisted rectal cancer resection (RARC) group. Patients in the NOSE group had a reduced visual analog scale (p < 0.001), passed flatus more quickly (p = 0.002) and suffered less surgical stress than those in the RARC group. Moreover, 4 complications were observed in the NOSE group and 7 complications in the RARC group with no significant difference (p = 0.337) in terms of complications. The two groups had a similar survival outcomes, where the 3-year overall survival (p = 0.738) and 3-year progression-free survival (p = 0.986) were all comparable between the two groups. Histological differentiation and T stage could be regarded as independent prognostic factors for 3-year overall survival and 3-year progression-free survival. Robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction is a safe and feasible minimally invasive surgery for patients suffering from rectal cancer as it encompasses considerable several advantages. Histological differentiation and T stage may serve as independent prognostic factors for 3-year overall survival and 3-year progression-free survival.

Minimally invasive right colectomy with transrectal natural orifice extraction: could this be the next step forward?

Background

The transvaginal natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) approach for right-side colon surgery has been proven to exhibit favorable short-term outcomes. However, thus far, no study has reported the advantages of transrectal NOSE for right-side colon surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the technical feasibility, safety, and short-term outcomes of minimally invasive right hemicolectomy using the transrectal NOSE method and those of conventional mini-laparotomy specimen extraction.

Methods

A study was conducted on consecutive patients who had minimally invasive right hemicolectomy either for malignancy or benign disease at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taiwan, between January 2017 and December 2018. The patients were divided into two groups: conventional surgery with specimen extraction using mini-laparotomy and NOSE surgery. Surgical outcomes, including complications, postoperative short-term recovery, and pain intensity, were analyzed.

Results

We enrolled 297 patients (151 males, mean age 64.9 ± 12.8 years) who had minimally invasive right hemicolectomy. Of these 297 patients, 272 patients had conventional surgery with specimen extraction through mini-laparotomy and 25 patients had NOSE surgery (23 transrectal, 2 transvaginal). The diagnosis of colon disease did not differ significantly between the conventional and NOSE groups. Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were comparable. The postoperative hospital stay was significantly (p = 0.004) shorter in the NOSE group (median 5 days, range 3–17 days) than in the conventional group (median 7 days, range 3–45 days). Postoperative pain was significantly (p = 0.026 on postoperative day 1 and p = 0.002 on postoperative day 2) greater in the conventional group than in the NOSE group.

Conclusions

NOSE was associated with acceptable short-term surgical outcomes that were comparable to those of conventional surgery. NOSE results in less postoperative wound pain and a shorter hospital stay than conventional surgery. Larger studies are needed

Safety and survival outcomes of transanal natural orifice specimen extraction using prolapsing technique for patients with middle- to low-rectal cancer

Objective

The transanal approach to specimen collection, combined with the prolapsing technique, is a well-established and minimally invasive surgery for treating rectal cancer. However, reports on outcomes for this approach are sparse. We compared short- and long-term outcomes of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) vs. transanal natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) using the prolapsing technique for patients with middle- to low-rectal cancer.

Methods

From January 2013 to December 2017, we enrolled consecutive patients with middle- to low-rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection. Totally, 50 patients who underwent transanal NOSE using the prolapsing technique were matched with 50 patients who received CLS. Clinical parameters and survival outcomes between the two groups were compared.

Results

Estimated blood loss (29.70±29.28 vs. 52.80±45.09 mL, P=0.003), time to first flatus (2.50±0.79 vs. 2.86±0.76, P=0.022), time to liquid diet (3.62±0.64 vs. 4.20±0.76 d, P<0.001), and the need for analgesics (22%vs. 48%, P=0.006) were significantly lower for the NOSE group compared to the CLS group. The incidences of overall complications and fecal incontinence were comparable in both groups. After a median follow-up of 44.52 months, the overall local recurrence rate (6% vs. 5%, P=0.670), 3-year disease-free survival (86.7% vs. 88.0%, P=0.945) and 3-year overall survival (95.6% vs. 96.0%, P=0.708), were not significantly different.

Conclusions

For total laparoscopic rectal resection, transanal NOSE using the prolapsing technique is effective and safe, and associated with less trauma and pain, a faster recovery, and similar survival outcomes compared to CLS.

Safety and Oncological Outcomes of Laparoscopic NOSE Surgery Compared With Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Diseases: A Meta-Analysis

Objective: To evaluate the safety and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery using natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) compared with conventional laparoscopic (CL) colorectal surgery in patients with colorectal diseases.

Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective non-randomized trials and retrospective trials up to September 1, 2018, and used 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), lymph node harvest, surgical site infection (SSI), anastomotic leakage, and intra-abdominal abscess as the main endpoints. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to the different study types [RCT and NRCT (non-randomized controlled trial)]. A sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the reliability of the outcomes. RevMan5.3 software was used for statistical analysis.

Results: Fourteen studies were included (two RCTs, seven retrospective trials and five prospective non-randomized trials) involving a total of 1,435 patients. Compared with CL surgery, the NOSE technique resulted in a shorter hospital stay, shorter time to first flatus, less post-operative pain, and fewer SSIs and total perioperative complications. Anastomotic leakage, blood loss, and intra-abdominal abscess did not differ between the two groups, while operation time was longer in the NOSE group. Oncological outcomes such as proximal margin [weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.49 to 1.42; P = 0.34], distal margin (WMD= −0.11; 95% CI −0.66 to 0.45; P = 0.70), lymph node harvest (WMD = −0.97; 95% CI −1.97 to 0.03; P = 0.06) and 5-year DFS (hazard ratio = 0.84; 95% CI 0.54–1.31; P = 0.45) were not different between the NOSE and CL surgery groups.

Conclusions: Compared with CL surgery, NOSE may be a safe procedure, and can achieve similar oncological outcomes. Large multicenter RCTs are needed to provide high-level, evidence-based results in NOSE-treated patients and to determine the risk of local recurrence.