Comparison of Survival between Single-Access and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery in Rectal Cancer.

IF 1.3 Q3 SURGERY
Minimally Invasive Surgery Pub Date : 2021-03-17 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2021/6684527
Siripong Sirikurnpiboon
{"title":"Comparison of Survival between Single-Access and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery in Rectal Cancer.","authors":"Siripong Sirikurnpiboon","doi":"10.1155/2021/6684527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Innovative laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer can be classified into 2 types: firstly, new instruments such as robotic surgery and secondly, new technique such as single-access laparoscopic surgery (SALS) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Most reports of SALS for rectal cancer have shown pathologic outcomes comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS); however, SALS is considered to be superior to CLS in terms of lower levels of discomfort and faster recovery rates. This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes of the two approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From 2011 to 2014, 84 cases of adenocarcinoma of the rectum and anal canal were enrolled. The operations were anterior, low anterior, intersphincteric, and abdominoperineal resections. Data collected included postoperative outcomes. The oncological outcomes recorded included 3-year and 5-year survival, local recurrence, and metastasis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>SALS was performed on 41 patients, and CLS was utilized in 43 cases. The demographic data of the two groups were similar. Intraoperative volumes of blood loss and conversion rates were similar, but operative time was longer in the SALS group. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications or pathological outcomes. The oncologic results were similar in terms of 3-year survival (100% and 97.7%; <i>p</i> = 1.00), 5-year survival (78.0% and 86.0%; <i>p</i> = 0.401), local recurrence rates (19.5% vs 11.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.376), and metastasis rates (19.5% vs 11.6%; <i>p</i> = 0.376) for SALS and CLS, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SALS and CLS for rectal and anal cancer had comparable pathological and survival results, but SALS showed some superior benefits in the early postoperative period.</p>","PeriodicalId":45110,"journal":{"name":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7994082/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6684527","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Introduction: Innovative laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer can be classified into 2 types: firstly, new instruments such as robotic surgery and secondly, new technique such as single-access laparoscopic surgery (SALS) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Most reports of SALS for rectal cancer have shown pathologic outcomes comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS); however, SALS is considered to be superior to CLS in terms of lower levels of discomfort and faster recovery rates. This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes of the two approaches.

Methods: From 2011 to 2014, 84 cases of adenocarcinoma of the rectum and anal canal were enrolled. The operations were anterior, low anterior, intersphincteric, and abdominoperineal resections. Data collected included postoperative outcomes. The oncological outcomes recorded included 3-year and 5-year survival, local recurrence, and metastasis.

Results: SALS was performed on 41 patients, and CLS was utilized in 43 cases. The demographic data of the two groups were similar. Intraoperative volumes of blood loss and conversion rates were similar, but operative time was longer in the SALS group. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications or pathological outcomes. The oncologic results were similar in terms of 3-year survival (100% and 97.7%; p = 1.00), 5-year survival (78.0% and 86.0%; p = 0.401), local recurrence rates (19.5% vs 11.6%, p = 0.376), and metastasis rates (19.5% vs 11.6%; p = 0.376) for SALS and CLS, respectively.

Conclusion: SALS and CLS for rectal and anal cancer had comparable pathological and survival results, but SALS showed some superior benefits in the early postoperative period.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

直肠癌单通道腹腔镜手术与常规腹腔镜手术的生存率比较。
创新的直肠癌腹腔镜手术可分为两类:一是机器人手术等新器械,二是单通道腹腔镜手术(SALS)、经肛门全肠系膜切除(TaTME)等新技术。大多数直肠癌SALS的报告显示病理结果与传统腹腔镜手术(CLS)相当;然而,SALS被认为在不适程度较低和恢复速度较快方面优于CLS。本研究旨在比较两种方法的生存结局。方法:选取2011 ~ 2014年84例直肠肛管腺癌患者。手术包括前路、下前路、括约肌间和腹部会阴切除术。收集的数据包括术后结果。记录的肿瘤预后包括3年和5年生存、局部复发和转移。结果:41例患者行SALS, 43例患者行CLS。两组的人口统计数据相似。术中出血量和转换率相似,但SALS组手术时间更长。两组术后并发症及病理结果无显著差异。肿瘤学结果在3年生存率方面相似(100%和97.7%;P = 1.00), 5年生存率分别为78.0%和86.0%;P = 0.401),局部复发率(19.5% vs 11.6%, P = 0.376),转移率(19.5% vs 11.6%;p = 0.376),分别为SALS和CLS。结论:SALS和CLS治疗直肠癌和肛门癌的病理和生存结果相当,但SALS在术后早期表现出一些优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信