Transanal versus transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a retrospective analysis from China

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, specimen extraction: transanal or transabdominal?

BACKGROUND

Comparison of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) and transabdominal specimen extraction (TASE) in colorectal surgery remains controversial. Herein, we aimed to perform a retrospective analysis on surgical outcomes of NOSE and TASE at three hospitals in east of Iran.

METHOD

Consecutive locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery using either NOSE or TASE from 2011 to 2017 were recruited. These patients were followed-up till 2020. Data, including postoperative complications, long-term overall and recurrence-free survival were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

239 eligible patients were included in this study. 169 (70.71%) patients underwent NOSE, and 70 (29.29%) patients underwent TASE. Although this study has achieved similar outcomes in terms of overall and recurrence-free survival, metastasis, circumferential margin involvement as well as complications of intra-operative bleeding, obstruction, anastomosis-fail, rectovaginal-fistula in women and pelvic collection/abscess in both groups, we observed higher rates of locoregional recurrence, incontinency, stenosis and the close distal margins involvement in NOSE group and also obstructed defecation syndrome in TASE cases.

CONCLUSION

According to our findings, NOSE laparoscopic surgery showed significantly higher incontinency, impotency, stenosis and involvement of the close distal margins rates. Nevertheless, considering the similarity of long-term overall and recurrence-free survival, metastasis, circumferential margin involvement, NOSE procedure is still could be considered as a second choice for lower rectal adenocarcinoma patients.

The feasibility and technical strategy of a fascia space priority approach in laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for advanced middle and low rectal cancer: a retrospective multicentre study

Introduction

Laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) is an important treatment for patients with lateral lymph node metastasis.

Aim

To assess the technical feasibility and investigate the surgical outcomes after LLND using the fascia space priority approach for patients with advanced middle and low rectal cancer.

Material and methods

Consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic LLND using the fascia space priority approach from June 2017 to June 2020 were identified from 12 medical centres in mainland China. Three anatomic fascia spaces were dissected to establish the boundaries of the LLND, and the obturator and internal iliac lymph nodes were excised in an en bloc manner. Retrospective clinical data including patient characteristics, surgical details, and pathology were analysed.

Results

A total of 112 patients were identified. All surgeries were completed laparoscopically with no conversions. The mean operation time was 343.6 ±103.8 min for the entire procedure. The median blood loss was 100 ml (range: 100-700 ml). The median lymph node yield was 6 (range: 1-41), and lymph nodes were positive in 39.3% (44/112) of the patients. Sixteen (14.3%) patients had Clavien-Dindo I-II complications, no Clavien-Dindo III-IV complications were identified. The incidence of complications between the bilateral dissection group and the unilateral dissection group was not statistically different (p = 0.19). The complication rate between the "nCRT" group and the "no nCRT" group was not significantly different (p = 0.62) either. There were no perioperative deaths.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic LLND using the fascia space priority approach is feasible and safe for patients with lateral lymph node metastasis.

Colorectal resection via natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic extraction: a meta-analysis with meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown differences in postoperative outcomes between two minimally invasive extraction methods for colorectal lesions-natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). The aim of this study was to discover the major differences in NOSES and CLS to refine current practice.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for articles comparing NOSES and CLS from inception till March 2020. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) were estimated for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. Summary statistics were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (15 on malignant disease, 4 on benign disease, 2 on both) were included in this meta-analysis, totalling 2378 patients (1079 NOSE, 1299 CLS). NOSE was associated with decreased: intraoperative bleeding (WMD: - 10.652 ml; 95% CI: - 18.818 ml to - 2.482 ml; p < 0.001), pain score (WMD: - 1.520; 95% CI - 1.965 to - 1.076; p < 0.001), time to flatus (WMD: - 0.306 days; 95% CI: - 0.526 to - 0.085 days; p < 0.001), length of hospital stay (WMD: - 1.048 days; 95% CI: - 1.488 to - 0.609 days; p < 0.001), and total morbidity (OR: 0.548; 95% CI: 0.387 to 0.777; p = 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed significant differences between malignant and benign lesions for intraoperative bleeding (p = 0.011) and pain score (p = 0.010). Meta-regression analyses showed an association between the American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification III with pain (p = 0.03) and ASA III with time to flatus (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis and meta-regression demonstrated that NOSES had better postoperative outcomes compared to CLS. More comprehensive reviews should be conducted on the long-term outcomes specific to the extraction site to better inform clinical practice.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic anterior resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE-LAR) versus abdominal incision specimen extraction (AISE-LAR) for sigmoid or rectal tumors

BACKGROUND

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery is a novel technique of minimally invasive surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety of laparoscopic anterior resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE-LAR) and abdominal incision specimen extraction (AISE-LAR) for sigmoid or rectum tumors.

METHODS

MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Scopus, and ClinicalTrials databases were systematically searched for related articles up to August 2019. The primary outcomes included postoperative complications (overall postoperative complication, incision-related complication, anastomotic fistula, and severe complication) and pathologic results (lymph nodes harvested, proximal resection margin, and distal resection edge). The statistical analysis was performed on STATA 12.0 software.

RESULTS

Ten studies comprising 1787 patients were used for meta-analysis. Compared with AISE-LAR, NOSE-LAR had more advantages in terms of overall postoperative complication (odds ratio (OR) = 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.90; P = 0.01)), incision-related complication (OR = 0.13 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.35; P < 0.01)), distal resection edge (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.17 cm (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.33 cm; P = 0.02)), recovery of gastrointestinal function (WMD = - 0.38 day (95% CI, - 0.70 to - 0.06 day; P = 0.02 )), pain scores in postoperative day 1 (WMD = - 1.64 (95% CI, - 2.31 to - 0.98; P < 0.01)), additional analgesics usage (OR = 0.21 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.40; P < 0.01)) and hospital stay (WMD = - 0.71 day (95% CI, - 1.10 to - 0.32 day; P < 0.01)), while the operation time of NOSE-LAR was prolonged (WMD = 7.4 min (95% CI, 0.17 to 14.64 min; P = 0.04)). The anastomotic fistula, severe complication, lymph nodes harvested, proximal resection margin, intraoperative blood loss, and long-term outcomes in NOSE-LAR were comparable with AISE-LAR.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety of NOSE-LAR was demonstrated, and it could be an alternative to conventional surgery in laparoscopic anterior resection for sigmoid and rectal tumors. However, further randomized and multi-center trials are required.