Benefit of laparoscopic two-team transanal beyond total mesorectal excision for advanced and recurrent rectal cancer with invasion: a retrospective study compared with conventional laparoscopic approach.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Ikuma Shioi, Takuya Shiraishi, Yutaro Shimizu, Kosei Uehara, Takahiro Seki, Nobuhiro Hosoi, Kouhei Tateno, Mizuki Endo, Shintaro Uchida, Arisa Yamaguchi, Chika Katayama, Yuta Shibasaki, Chika Komine, Katsuya Osone, Takuhisa Okada, Akiharu Kimura, Akihiko Sano, Makoto Sakai, Ken Shirabe, Hiroshi Saeki
{"title":"Benefit of laparoscopic two-team transanal beyond total mesorectal excision for advanced and recurrent rectal cancer with invasion: a retrospective study compared with conventional laparoscopic approach.","authors":"Ikuma Shioi, Takuya Shiraishi, Yutaro Shimizu, Kosei Uehara, Takahiro Seki, Nobuhiro Hosoi, Kouhei Tateno, Mizuki Endo, Shintaro Uchida, Arisa Yamaguchi, Chika Katayama, Yuta Shibasaki, Chika Komine, Katsuya Osone, Takuhisa Okada, Akiharu Kimura, Akihiko Sano, Makoto Sakai, Ken Shirabe, Hiroshi Saeki","doi":"10.1007/s10151-025-03158-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal surgical approach for advanced or recurrent rectal cancer with invasion of adjacent structures remains controversial. This study aimed to clarify the feasibility of laparoscopic two-team transanal beyond total mesorectal excision in patients with advanced and recurrent rectal cancer with invasion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center retrospective study was conducted in a single educational hospital in Japan from January 2014 to March 2024. Patients with advanced or recurrent rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic or two-team transanal total mesorectal excision with the resection of adjacent structures were included in the analysis. Short-term outcomes were compared between the laparoscopic and transanal approaches. The burden of medical resources was assessed using a new index, Staff Time Consumed (STC = median number of participating staff members × operation time).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 35 patients were included. More patients underwent preoperative treatment and lateral lymph-node dissection using the transanal approach. However, the operative time (539 and 339 min in the laparoscopic and transanal groups, respectively; p < 0.001) and total blood loss (274 and 70 mL, respectively; p = 0.008) were lower in the transanal group. Additionally, the positive resection margin was lower in the transanal group than in the laparoscopic group (28% and 0%, p = 0.021); STC was comparable between groups. There was no increase in postoperative mortality or morbidity. Patients with surgical difficulties had shorter operative times in the transanal group, and comparable STC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Laparoscopic two-team transanal approach offers better short-term outcomes than the conventional approach in highly selected patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":51192,"journal":{"name":"Techniques in Coloproctology","volume":"29 1","pages":"120"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12102100/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techniques in Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-025-03158-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The optimal surgical approach for advanced or recurrent rectal cancer with invasion of adjacent structures remains controversial. This study aimed to clarify the feasibility of laparoscopic two-team transanal beyond total mesorectal excision in patients with advanced and recurrent rectal cancer with invasion.

Methods: This single-center retrospective study was conducted in a single educational hospital in Japan from January 2014 to March 2024. Patients with advanced or recurrent rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic or two-team transanal total mesorectal excision with the resection of adjacent structures were included in the analysis. Short-term outcomes were compared between the laparoscopic and transanal approaches. The burden of medical resources was assessed using a new index, Staff Time Consumed (STC = median number of participating staff members × operation time).

Results: In total, 35 patients were included. More patients underwent preoperative treatment and lateral lymph-node dissection using the transanal approach. However, the operative time (539 and 339 min in the laparoscopic and transanal groups, respectively; p < 0.001) and total blood loss (274 and 70 mL, respectively; p = 0.008) were lower in the transanal group. Additionally, the positive resection margin was lower in the transanal group than in the laparoscopic group (28% and 0%, p = 0.021); STC was comparable between groups. There was no increase in postoperative mortality or morbidity. Patients with surgical difficulties had shorter operative times in the transanal group, and comparable STC.

Conclusions: Laparoscopic two-team transanal approach offers better short-term outcomes than the conventional approach in highly selected patients.

腹腔镜两组经肛门直肠外全肠系膜切除术治疗晚期和复发性直肠癌侵袭的益处:与传统腹腔镜方法比较的回顾性研究。
背景:晚期或复发直肠癌侵犯邻近结构的最佳手术入路仍有争议。本研究旨在阐明腹腔镜下两组经肛门超过全肠系膜切除术治疗晚期复发直肠癌侵袭患者的可行性。方法:本研究于2014年1月至2024年3月在日本某教育医院进行单中心回顾性研究。晚期或复发的直肠癌患者接受了腹腔镜或两组经肛门全肠系膜切除术并切除邻近结构。比较腹腔镜和经肛入路的短期疗效。医疗资源负担采用新的指标——工作人员时间消耗(STC =参与工作人员中位数×手术时间)进行评估。结果:共纳入35例患者。更多的患者接受术前治疗和经肛入路外侧淋巴结清扫。腹腔镜组和经肛组手术时间分别为539 min和339 min;结论:在高度选定的患者中,腹腔镜双组经肛门入路比传统入路具有更好的短期疗效。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Techniques in Coloproctology
Techniques in Coloproctology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
176
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Techniques in Coloproctology is an international journal fully devoted to diagnostic and operative procedures carried out in the management of colorectal diseases. Imaging, clinical physiology, laparoscopy, open abdominal surgery and proctoperineology are the main topics covered by the journal. Reviews, original articles, technical notes and short communications with many detailed illustrations render this publication indispensable for coloproctologists and related specialists. Both surgeons and gastroenterologists are represented on the distinguished Editorial Board, together with pathologists, radiologists and basic scientists from all over the world. The journal is strongly recommended to those who wish to be updated on recent developments in the field, and improve the standards of their work. Manuscripts submitted for publication must contain a statement to the effect that all human studies have been reviewed by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in an appropriate version of the 1965 Declaration of Helsinki. It should also be stated clearly in the text that all persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study should be omitted. Reports of animal experiments must state that the Principles of Laboratory Animal Care (NIH publication no. 86-23 revised 1985) were followed as were applicable national laws (e.g. the current version of the German Law on the Protection of Animals). The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. Authors will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill such requirements.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信