Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery versus Conventional Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity-Score Matching Study

Advancing mid-rectal cancer surgery: Unveiling the potential of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in comparison to conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection

BACKGROUND

Mid-rectal cancer treatment traditionally involves conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection (CLAR). This study aimed to assess the clinical and therapeutic advantages of Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery (NOSES) over CLAR.

AIMS

To compare the clinical outcomes, intraoperative metrics, postoperative recovery, complications, and long-term prognosis between NOSES and CLAR groups.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A total of 136 patients were analyzed, with 92 undergoing CLAR and 44 undergoing NOSES. Clinical outcomes were evaluated, and propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to control potential biases.

RESULTS

The NOSES group exhibited significant improvements in postoperative recovery, including lower pain scores on days 1, 3, and 5 (p < .001), reduced need for additional analgesics (p = .02), shorter hospital stays (10.8 ± 2.3 vs. 14.2 ± 5.3 days; p < .001), and decreased intraoperative blood loss (48.1 ± 52.7 mL vs. 71.0 ± 55.0 mL; p = .03). Patients undergoing NOSES also reported enhanced satisfaction with postoperative abdominal appearance and better quality of life. Additionally, the NOSES approach resulted in fewer postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

While long-term outcomes (overall survival, disease-free survival, and local recurrence rates) were comparable between the two methods, NOSES demonstrated superior postoperative outcomes compared to CLAR in mid-rectal cancer treatment, while maintaining similar long-term oncological safety. These findings suggest that NOSES could serve as an effective alternative to CLAR without compromising long-term results.

Comparative long-term outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic colectomy for left-sided colorectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is currently widely used in left-sided colorectal cancer. Some clinical comparative studies have been conducted, providing evidence of its safety and oncological benefits. However, these studies are typically characterized by small sample sizes and short postoperative follow-up periods. Consequently, in this research, the authors adopt the propensity score matching method to undertake a large-scale retrospective comparative study on NOSES colectomy for left-sided colorectal cancer, with the goal of further augmenting the body of evidence-based medical support for NOSES.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved patients who underwent NOSES colectomy and conventional laparoscopic (CL) colectomy for left-sided colorectal cancer between January 2014 and April 2021. In the NOSES group, specimens were extracted through the anus with the help of a Cai tube (homemade invention: ZL201410168748.2). The patients were matched at a ratio of 1:1 according to age, sex, BMI, tumor diameter, tumor location (descending and splenic flexure colon/ sigmoid colon/ middle and upper rectum), tumor height from anal verge, ASA grade, previous abdominal surgery, clinical pathologic stage, preoperative CEA. After matching, 132 patients in the NOSES group and 132 patients in the CL group were eligible for analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with CL group, NOSES group was associated with decreased postoperative maximum pain score (2.6±0.7 vs. 4.7±1.7, P=0.000), less additional analgesia required (6.8 vs. 34.8%, P=0.000), faster time to passage of flatus (2.3±0.6 days vs. 3.3±0.7 days, P=0.000), less wound infection (0.0 vs. 6.1%, P=0.007), and longer operative time (212.5±45.8 min vs. 178.0±43.4 min, P=0.000). No significant differences were observed in estimated blood loss, time to resume regular diet, postoperative hospital stay, conversion to open surgery or conventional minilaparotomy, total morbidity, readmission, mortality, pathologic outcomes, and Wexner incontinence score between groups. After a median follow-up of 63.0 months, the 5-year overall survival rates were 88.3 versus 85.0% (P=0.487), disease-free survival rates were 82.9 versus 83.6% (P=0.824), and the local recurrence rates were 4.4 versus 4.0% (P=0.667) in the NOSES and CL groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that NOSES colectomy using a Cai tube for left-sided colorectal cancer is a safe and feasible option with better cosmetic results, less pain, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, and comparable long-term clinical and oncologic outcomes to CL colectomy.

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery I-type F method vs conventional robotic resection for lower rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic resection using the natural orifice specimen extraction surgery I-type F method (R-NOSES I-F) is a novel minimally invasive surgical strategy for the treatment of lower rectal cancer. However, the current literature on this method is limited to case reports, and further investigation into its safety and feasibility is warranted.

AIM

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of R-NOSES I-F for the treatment of low rectal cancer.

METHODS

From September 2018 to February 2022, 206 patients diagnosed with low rectal cancer at First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University were included in this retrospective analysis. Of these patients, 22 underwent R-NOSES I-F surgery (R-NOSES I-F group) and 76 underwent conventional robotic-assisted low rectal cancer resection (RLRC group). Clinicopathological data of all patients were collected and analyzed. Postoperative outcomes and prognoses were compared between the two groups. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software.

RESULTS

Patients in the R-NOSES I-F group had a significantly lower visual analog score for pain on postoperative day 1 (1.7 ± 0.7 vs 2.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.003) and shorter postoperative anal venting time (2.7 ± 0.6 vs 3.5 ± 0.7, P < 0.001) than those in the RLRC group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of sex, age, body mass index, tumor size, TNM stage, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative complications, or inflammatory response (P > 0.05). Postoperative anal and urinary functions, as assessed by Wexner, low anterior resection syndrome, and International Prostate Symptom Scale scores, were similar in both groups (P > 0.05). Long-term follow-up revealed no significant differences in the rates of local recurrence and distant metastasis between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

R-NOSES I-F is a safe and effective minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of lower rectal cancer. It improves pain relief, promotes gastrointestinal function recovery, and helps avoid incision-related complications.

Comparison of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in short-terms outcomes of middle rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery is becoming less invasive as technology advances. Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) ushered in a new era of minimally invasive techniques. At the same time, NOSES is gaining popularity in the world. With their distinct advantages, surgical robots have advanced the development of NOSES. The aim of current study was to compare the short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted NOSES and laparoscopic-assisted NOSES for the treatment of middle rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients with middle rectal cancer who underwent robotic-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted NOSES at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between January 2020 and June 2022 had their clinicopathological data collected retrospectively. 46 patients were enrolled in the study: 23 in the robotic group and 23 in the laparoscopic group. Short-term outcomes and postoperative anal function in the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the clinicopathological data between the two groups. The robotic group had less intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.04), less postoperative abdominal drainage (p = 0.02), lower postoperative white blood cell counts (p = 0.024) and C-reactive protein levels (p = 0.017), and shorter catheter removal time when compared to the laparoscopic group (p = 0.003). Furthermore, there were no significant difference in mean operative time (159 ± 31 min vs 172 ± 41 min) between the robotic and laparoscopic groups (p = 0.235), but time to naked the rectum (86.4 ± 20.9 min vs. 103.8 ± 31.5 min p = 0.033) and time of digestive tract reconstruction (15.6 ± 3.88 min vs. 22.1 ± 2.81 min p < 0.01) in the robotic group were significantly shorter than laparoscopic group. The robotic group had lower postoperative Wexner scores than the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

This research reveals that combining a robotic surgical system and NOSES results in superior outcomes, with short-term outcomes preferable to laparoscopic-assisted NOSES.

Transvaginal versus transabdominal specimen extraction surgery for right colon cancer: A propensity matching study

Background

The transvaginal route for specimen extraction is considered ideal for colorectal surgery, but its safety is still questioned. There has been little research on transvaginal natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) in the right hemicolectomy. As a result, we conducted a study comparing transvaginal NOSES to traditional transabdominal specimen extraction surgery.

Patients and methods

Data on female patients who underwent radical right hemicolectomy at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between January 2015 and December 2020 were collected retrospectively. A total of 847 patients were compliant, with 51 undergoing the transvaginal specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) group and 796 undergoing the transabdominal specimen extraction surgery (TISES) group. A propensity score matching method (1:2) was used to balance the clinicopathological characteristics of the two groups.

Results

Finally, 138 patients were enrolled in our study, with 46 in the NOSES group and 92 in the TISES group. Compared to the TISES group, the NOSES group had less intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.036), shorter time to first flatus (p &lt; 0.001), shorter time to first liquid diet (p &lt; 0.001), lower postoperative white blood cell counts (p = 0.026), lower C-reactive protein levels (p = 0.027), and lower visual analog scale (VAS) scores (p &lt; 0.001). Regarding the quality of life after surgery, the NOSES group had better role function (p &lt; 0.01), emotional function (p &lt; 0.001), and improved symptoms of postoperative pain (p &lt; 0.001) and diarrhea (p = 0.024). The scar satisfaction was significantly higher in the NOSES group than in the TISES group. Overall survival and disease-free survival in two groups were similar.

Conclusion

The short-term results of transvaginal NOSES were superior to conventional transabdominal specimen extraction surgery. At the same time, transvaginal NOSES could improve the abdominal wall appearance and quality of life. The long-term survival was similar in the two surgical approaches. Therefore, transvaginal NOSES is worthy of our implementation and promotion.

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional robotic resection for patients with colorectal neoplasms

Background

Laparoscopic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has been widely used in colorectal neoplasms. However, only a few studies have focused on robotic NOSES. This study compared the short-term clinical outcomes and long-term survival outcomes between robotic NOSES and conventional robotic resection (CRR) groups.

Methods

From March 2016 to October 2018, a consecutive of 143 patients who underwent robotic sigmoid and rectal resection at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, were considered for inclusion in this study. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was conducted to account for differences in the baseline characteristics. After PSM, 39 patients were included in the robotic NOSES group, and 39 patients in the CRR group. The baseline characteristics between the two groups were all balanced and comparable.

Results

Patients in the NOSES group experienced less intraoperative blood loss (p=0.001), lower requirements for additional analgesia (p=0.020), shorter time to first flatus (p=0.010), and a shorter time to first liquid diet (p=0.003) than the CRR group. The 3-year overall survival rates (NOSES: 92.3% vs. CRR: 89.7% p=1.000) and 3-year disease-free survival rates (NOSES: 82.1% vs. CRR: 84.6% p=0.761) between the two groups were comparable.

Conclusion

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery is a safe and feasible surgery for patients with colorectal neoplasms. Robotic NOSES is associated with better short-term clinical outcomes and similar long-term survival outcomes to conventional robotic resection.

Evaluating short-term and survival outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for colorectal cancer: A single-centre retrospective study

Background

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has been confirmed as an alternative approach without auxiliary incisions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the short-term and survival outcomes of NOSES versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP) in treatment of sigmoid and high rectal cancer.

Method

The retrospective study was conducted at single centers between January 2017 to December 2021. Relevant data included clinical demographics, pathological features, operative parameters, postoperative complications and survival outcomes were collected and analyzed. All procedures were performed using either a NOSES or a conventional LAP approach. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance clinical and pathological features between the two groups.

Results

After PSM, a total of 288 patients were eventually included in this study, 144 in each group. Patients in the NOSES group experienced faster recovery of gastrointestinal function (2.6 ± 0.8 vs. 3.6 ± 0.9 day, P = 0.037), less pain and less analgesia required (12.5% vs. 33.3%, P < 0.001). In addition, the incidence of surgical site infection in the LAP group was significantly higher than that in the NOSES group (12.5% vs. 4.2%, P = 0.011), especially incision-related complications (8.3% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.017). After a median follow-up of 32 (range, 3-75) months, the two groups had similar 3-year overall survival rates (88.4% vs. 88.6%; P = 0.850) and disease-free survival rates (82.9% vs. 77.2%; P = 0.494).

Conclusion

The transrectal NOSES procedure is a well-established strategy with advantages in reducing postoperative pain, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, and less incision-related complications. In addition, the long-term survival is similar between NOSES and conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Development and future perspectives of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for gastric cancer

In recent years, natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES), a novel minimally invasive surgical technique, has become a focus in the surgical field, and has been initially applied in gastric surgery in many national medical centers worldwide. In addition, this new surgical technique was launched in major hospitals in China. With an increasing number of patients who have accepted this new surgical technique, NOSES has provided new prospects for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC), which may achieve a better outcome for both patients and surgeons. More and more experts and scholars from different countries and regions are currently paying close attention to NOSES for the treatment of GC. However, there are only a few reports of its use in GC. This review focuses on the research progress in NOSES for radical gastrectomy in recent years. We also discuss the challenges and prospects of NOSES in clinical practice.

Outcomes after natural orifice extraction vs conventional specimen extraction surgery for colorectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) via the anus or vagina replaces conventional transabdominal specimen retrieval via the transabdominal route through a limited mid-line laparotomy or Pfannenstiel incision. Reducing the number of laparoscopic ports further decreases operative abdominal wall trauma. These techniques reduce the surgical wound size as well as the risk of incision-related morbidity.

AIM

To compare short-term outcomes following 3-port NOSE surgery with a matched cohort of conventional non-NOSE colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective 3-port laparoscopic colorectal NOSE surgery between February to October 2021 were identified. Selection criteria for NOSE surgery was adapted from the 2019 International Consensus on Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery for colorectal cancer. Patients with clinical T4 or N2 tumors on staging computed tomography were also excluded. The propensity score-matched cohort was identified amongst patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic colorectal surgery from January 2019 to December 2020. Matching was performed in the ratio of 1:4 based on age, gender, type of resection, and p - tumor node metastasis staging.

RESULTS

Over the eight-month study duration, 14 consecutive cases (nine female, five male) of elective 3-port laparoscopic surgery with NOSE were performed for colorectal cancer. Median age and body mass index were 70 (range 43-82) years and 24.1 (range 20.0-31.7) kg/m2 respectively. Six patients underwent transanal NOSE and eight had transvaginal NOSE. Median operative time, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative length of stay were 208 (range 165-365) min, 30 (range 10-150) mL and 3 (range 2-6) d respectively. Two (14%) suffered minor postoperative compilations not attributable to the NOSE procedure. Median follow-up duration was 12 (range 8-15) mo. No instances of mortality, local or distant disease recurrence were recorded in this cohort. Compared to the conventional surgery cohort of 56 patients, the 3-port NOSE cohort had significantly quicker mean return of bowel function (2.6 vs 1.2 d, P < 0.001), reduced postoperative pain and patient-controlled analgesia use, and decreased length of hospital stay (6.4 vs 3.4 d, P < 0.001). There were no statistical differences in surgical duration and perioperative complication rates between the NOSE and non-NOSE cohorts.

CONCLUSION

3-port laparoscopic colorectal surgery with NOSE is a feasible technique, augmenting the minimally invasive nature of surgery and producing good outcomes. Appropriate patient selection and expertise in conventional laparoscopy are required.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection in the treatment of rectal cancer: a propensity-score matching study

BACKGROUND

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has been increasingly applied in radical surgery of abdominal and pelvic organs, but it is still in the exploratory stage. There is insufficient evidence to prove its efficacy.

METHODS

From January 2013 to June 2017, a total of 351 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer were eventually included in this study. Patients who underwent NOSES were assigned to the NOSES group, while patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic assisted resection were assigned as to the LAP group. Propensity score matching was used to align clinicopathological features between the two groups.

RESULTS

From the perioperative data and postoperative follow-up results of both groups, patients in the NOSES group had less intraoperative bleeding (47.0 ± 60.4 ml vs 87.1 ± 101.2 ml, P = 0.011), shorter postoperative gastrointestinal recovery (50.7 ± 27.3 h vs 58.6 ± 28.5 h, P = 0.040), less postoperative analgesic use (36.8% vs 52.8%, P = 0.019), lower postoperative pain scores (P < 0.001), lower rate of postoperative complications (5.7% vs 15.5%, P = 0.020), more satisfaction with body image (P = 0.001) and cosmesis (P < 0.001) postoperatively. The NOSES group had a higher quality of life. Moreover, there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

NOSES could be a safe and reliable technique for radical resection of rectal cancer, with better short-term outcomes than conventional laparoscopy, while long-term survival is not significantly different from that of conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Influence of transvaginal laparoscopic surgery on sexual function, life quality and short-term efficacy of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effect of transvaginal specimen removal on sexual function, life quality and short-term efficacy of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer.

METHOD

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 100 patients with colorectal cancer treated in the Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from September 2017 to December 2019. Among them, 52 patients who underwent transvaginal laparoscopic mid-to-high rectal cancer radical resection without assisted abdominal incision who were chosen as the observation group, and 48 patients with conventional laparoscopic-assisted mid-to-high rectal cancer radical resection were set as the control group. Intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph nodes retrieved, operation time, time of urinary catheter removal, drainage tube removal time and postoperative hospital stay were recorded and compared between the two groups. During the process, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to assess the pain status of both groups of patients 24 hours after the operation, and the Female Sexual Function Index was used to evaluate the sexual function quality of patients before and 3 months after surgery. Postoperative complications, 2-year survival rate and 6-month postoperative quality of life of both groups of patients were evaluated and compared.

RESULTS

In comparison with the control group, the amount of intraoperative blood loss, catheter removal time, drainage tube removal time, and length of postoperative hospital stay were significantly reduced in the observation group, while the number of lymph nodes retrieved was significantly greater. The VAS score 24 hours after operation was lower in the observation group compared with the control group, with statistical significance. There was no significant difference in postoperative sexual function and complication rates between the two groups. However, the 2-year survival rate and the quality of life 6 months after surgery were comparatively higher in the observation group.

CONCLUSION

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is effective for transvaginal specimen removal of patients with colorectal cancer, and can significantly improve the prognosis and life quality of patients without affecting their sexual function, with a high safety profile, which is worthy of clinical promotion.

The natural orifice specimen extraction surgery compared with conventional laparoscopy for colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of efficacy and long-term oncological outcomes

PURPOSE

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has gradually become established in treating colorectal cancer. This meta-analysis assesses NOSES in the treatment of colorectal cancer compared with conventional laparoscopy (CL) and determines the effect of long-term prognosis.

METHODS

Various medical databases were searched up to May 2021. We included retrospective and randomized trials on the treatment of colorectal cancer with NOSES. Pooled weighted/standardized mean differences (WMD/SMD), odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using either fixed- or random-effects models. STATA was conducted for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 16 studies comprising 2266 patients. Compared with CL, NOSES had more benefits in terms of overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.47, 95%CI [0.35,0.64]; Z = 4.91, P < 0.001), incision-related complications (OR = 0.15, 95%CI [0.07,0.31]; Z = 4.97, P < 0.001), time to first flatus (SMD = -0.58, 95%CI [-0.68,-0.48]; Z = 11.21, P < 0.001), hospital stay (WMD = -1.03, 95%CI [-1.55,-0.51]; Z = 3.86, P < 0.001), cosmetic scores (WMD = 1.37, 95%CI [0.59,2.14]; Z = 3.47, P = 0.001), the visual analogue scale on postoperative day 1（WMD = -1.46, 95%CI [-2.39,-0.52]; Z = 3.06, P = 0.002), additional analgesics usage (OR = 0.33, 95%CI [0.26, 0.43]; Z = 8.43, P < 0.001), whereas the operative time of NOSES was prolonged (WMD = 13.09, 95%CI [7.07,19.11]; Z = 4.26, P < 0.001). Postoperative anastomotic complications, intra-abdominal infection, pelvic floor function, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph node dissection, 3-year disease-free and overall survival in the NOSES group were comparable with those in the CL group.

CONCLUSIONS

NOSES is a safe and reliable surgical procedure for the treatment of colorectal cancer and provides good long-term oncological outcomes. Large-scale multicenter studies are required to confirm its clinical benefits.

Role of Phenotypes of Circulating Tumor Cells in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and their subpopulations and colorectal cancer (CRC). To explore the application of CTCs' numbers and positive rates in the diagnosis and treatment of CRC, and to assess the effect of surgery on CTCs numbers and positivity.

METHODS

We identified CTCs using the CanPatrol technique after enrollment. Peripheral blood samples were collected from 74 CRC patients before anti-tumor treatment. CTCs can be divided into the following three phenotypes: epithelial CTCs (E-CTCs) (EpCAM+, Vimentin-), mesenchymal CTCs (M-CTCs) (EpCAM-, Vimentin+), and mixed CTCs (E/M-CTCs) (EpCAM+, Vimentin+). CTCs and the proportion of subtypes were statistically compared with clinicopathological characteristics.

RESULTS

The positive rate of M-CTCs was significantly higher in patients with tumor size ≥5 cm (85.7% vs 49.1%, P = 0.004) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) >5 ng/mL (83.3% vs 51.0% p = 0.024). Moreover, the T stage (T1 0, T2 33.3%, T3 59.4%, T4 100%, p < 0.0005) and TNM stage (stage I 11.8%, stage II 79.2%, stage III 64.3%, stage IV 100%, p < 0.0005) were correlated with the positive rate of M-CTCs. We also found that the proportion of M-CTCs was correlated with the T stage (p < 0.0005) and TNM stage (p=0.0200), but not with the N stage (p=0.6889). In survival analysis, M-CTCs >1 were found associated with worse disease-free survival (p=0.007). After treatment, the number and proportion of CTCs and M-CTCs were significantly reduced.

CONCLUSION

The positive rate of M-CTCs was associated with tumor size, T stage, TNM stage, vascular invasion, and CEA. As the disease progressed, the proportion of M-CTCs gradually increased, and the survival performance was worse in patients with a high positive rate of M-CTCs.