Transanal versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision in Male Patients with Low Tumor Location after Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Ze Li, Jingkun Xiao, Y. Hou, Xing-wei Zhang, H. Jie, Huashan Liu, Lei Ruan, Z. Zeng, L. Kang
{"title":"Transanal versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision in Male Patients with Low Tumor Location after Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study","authors":"Ze Li, Jingkun Xiao, Y. Hou, Xing-wei Zhang, H. Jie, Huashan Liu, Lei Ruan, Z. Zeng, L. Kang","doi":"10.1155/2022/2387464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Since Sylla and Lacy successfully reported the transanal total mesorectal excision in 2010, taTME was considered to have the potential to overcome some problematic laparoscopic cases in male, low advanced rectal cancer. However, the evidence is still lacking. This study compared the short and long outcomes of taTME with laTME in these “challenging” patients to explore the advantages of taTME among the patients. Method After propensity score matching analysis, 106 patients were included in each group from 325 patients who met the including standard. Statistical analysis was used to compare the differences of perioperative outcomes, histopathological results, and survival results between taTME and laTME groups. Results The mean time of pelvic operation in the taTME group was significantly shorter than in the laTME group (62.2 ± 14.2 mins vs 81.1 ± 18.9 mins, P = 0.003). The complication incidence rate and the rate of protective loop ileostomy in the taTME group were significantly lower than those in the laTME group (19.8% vs 38.7%, P = 0.003 and 70.8% vs 92.5%, P < 0.001). In long-term result, there was no significant difference between the two groups for 3-year OS (87.3% vs 85.4%, P = 0.86) or 3-year DFS (74.9% vs 70.1%, P = 0.92). The 2-year cumulative local recurrence rate was similar between the two groups (1.1% vs 5.8%, P = 0.22). Conclusion This study demonstrated that taTME might reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, especially of anastomotic leakage in these “challenging” patients. taTME may be considered to have clear advantages for “challenging” patients.","PeriodicalId":12597,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterology Research and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterology Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2387464","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background Since Sylla and Lacy successfully reported the transanal total mesorectal excision in 2010, taTME was considered to have the potential to overcome some problematic laparoscopic cases in male, low advanced rectal cancer. However, the evidence is still lacking. This study compared the short and long outcomes of taTME with laTME in these “challenging” patients to explore the advantages of taTME among the patients. Method After propensity score matching analysis, 106 patients were included in each group from 325 patients who met the including standard. Statistical analysis was used to compare the differences of perioperative outcomes, histopathological results, and survival results between taTME and laTME groups. Results The mean time of pelvic operation in the taTME group was significantly shorter than in the laTME group (62.2 ± 14.2 mins vs 81.1 ± 18.9 mins, P = 0.003). The complication incidence rate and the rate of protective loop ileostomy in the taTME group were significantly lower than those in the laTME group (19.8% vs 38.7%, P = 0.003 and 70.8% vs 92.5%, P < 0.001). In long-term result, there was no significant difference between the two groups for 3-year OS (87.3% vs 85.4%, P = 0.86) or 3-year DFS (74.9% vs 70.1%, P = 0.92). The 2-year cumulative local recurrence rate was similar between the two groups (1.1% vs 5.8%, P = 0.22). Conclusion This study demonstrated that taTME might reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, especially of anastomotic leakage in these “challenging” patients. taTME may be considered to have clear advantages for “challenging” patients.
新辅助治疗后肿瘤位置低的男性患者经肛门与腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术:倾向评分匹配的队列研究
背景自从Sylla和Lacy在2010年成功报道经肛门全直肠炎切除术以来,taTME被认为有可能克服男性低晚期癌症中一些有问题的腹腔镜病例。然而,证据仍然缺乏。本研究比较了taTME和laTME在这些“具有挑战性”患者中的短期和长期结果,以探索taTME在患者中的优势。方法对325例符合纳入标准的患者进行倾向评分匹配分析,每组106例。统计分析用于比较taTME组和laTME组的围手术期结果、组织病理学结果和生存率结果的差异。结果taTME组盆腔手术平均时间明显短于laTME组(62.2±14.2分钟vs 81.1±18.9分钟,P=0.003),并发症发生率和保护环回肠造口术发生率明显低于laTME(19.8%vs 38.7%,P=0.003和70.8%vs 92.5%,P<0.001),两组3年OS(87.3%vs 85.4%,P=0.86)和3年DFS(74.9%vs 70.1%,P=0.92)无显著差异。两组2年累积局部复发率相似(1.1%vs 5.8%,P=0.22),尤其是这些“有挑战性”的患者的吻合口瘘。taTME可能被认为对“有挑战性”的患者有明显的优势。
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
Gastroenterology Research and Practice
Gastroenterology Research and Practice GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Gastroenterology Research and Practice is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal which publishes original research articles, review articles and clinical studies based on all areas of gastroenterology, hepatology, pancreas and biliary, and related cancers. The journal welcomes submissions on the physiology, pathophysiology, etiology, diagnosis and therapy of gastrointestinal diseases. The aim of the journal is to provide cutting edge research related to the field of gastroenterology, as well as digestive diseases and disorders. Topics of interest include: Management of pancreatic diseases Third space endoscopy Endoscopic resection Therapeutic endoscopy Therapeutic endosonography.
×
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