LapPath研究:腹腔镜与开放式直肠癌手术病理结果的比较——来自印度南部三级癌症中心的回顾性分析

Q1 Medicine
N Aravind, Nizamudheen M. Pareekutty, Satheesan Balasubramanian, Akhil P. Suresh, Ratheesan Kumbakara
{"title":"LapPath研究:腹腔镜与开放式直肠癌手术病理结果的比较——来自印度南部三级癌症中心的回顾性分析","authors":"N Aravind, Nizamudheen M. Pareekutty, Satheesan Balasubramanian, Akhil P. Suresh, Ratheesan Kumbakara","doi":"10.4103/crst.crst_168_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Export Background: Total mesorectal excision (TME), which is the mainstay of the surgical management of carcinoma rectum, can either be achieved by open or laparoscopic techniques. Short-term benefits of laparoscopy were confirmed in previous meta-analyses, which found no difference in overall and disease-free survival, but data on pathologic outcomes of laparoscopy versus open surgery are heterogeneous. Objectives: The objective was to compare the pathological outcomes of laparoscopic with open rectal cancer resection. Materials and Methods: The LapPath (laparoscopic–pathological) study was a retrospective observational study conducted on patients with rectal cancers who underwent surgery between November 2017 and April 2020 at the Malabar Cancer Center, a tertiary cancer hospital in Thalassery, Kannur district in Kerala, South India. We divided the cohort based on whether the patients underwent laparoscopic or open surgery and compared various pathological outcomes in the two groups, including the quality of TME, nodal count, distal, and proximal margins. Results: We enrolled 170 patients, 98 (57%) had undergone laparoscopy and 72 (41.9%) had undergone open surgery. TME was complete in 68 (69.3%), near-complete in 30 (31%), and incomplete in 0 patients who underwent laparoscopic resection, versus 52 (72.2%), 20 (27.8%), and 0 patients who underwent open surgery; P, 0.554. The mean proximal margin was 11.1 cm (standard deviation [SD], 4.9) in the laparoscopic compared to 8.9 cm (SD, 6.5) in the open cohort; P, 0.434. The mean distal margin was 4.3 cm (SD, 2) in the laparoscopic group and 8 cm (SD, 6.6) in the open surgical group; P, 0.036. There were no cases in either group in which the proximal or distal margins were involved. The mean nodal count was also similar between the two groups: 10 (SD, 9.4) in the laparoscopic resection cohort and 9 (SD, 7.5) in the open surgery cohort; P, 0.475. Conclusions: Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery leads to similar pathological outcomes as open surgery. This study contributes to the evidence for oncologic safety of laparoscopic rectal cancer resections in patients with disease staged up to T3.","PeriodicalId":9427,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Research, Statistics, and Treatment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The LapPath study: Comparison of pathologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open rectal cancer surgery—A retrospective analysis from a tertiary cancer center in South India\",\"authors\":\"N Aravind, Nizamudheen M. Pareekutty, Satheesan Balasubramanian, Akhil P. Suresh, Ratheesan Kumbakara\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/crst.crst_168_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Export Background: Total mesorectal excision (TME), which is the mainstay of the surgical management of carcinoma rectum, can either be achieved by open or laparoscopic techniques. Short-term benefits of laparoscopy were confirmed in previous meta-analyses, which found no difference in overall and disease-free survival, but data on pathologic outcomes of laparoscopy versus open surgery are heterogeneous. Objectives: The objective was to compare the pathological outcomes of laparoscopic with open rectal cancer resection. Materials and Methods: The LapPath (laparoscopic–pathological) study was a retrospective observational study conducted on patients with rectal cancers who underwent surgery between November 2017 and April 2020 at the Malabar Cancer Center, a tertiary cancer hospital in Thalassery, Kannur district in Kerala, South India. We divided the cohort based on whether the patients underwent laparoscopic or open surgery and compared various pathological outcomes in the two groups, including the quality of TME, nodal count, distal, and proximal margins. Results: We enrolled 170 patients, 98 (57%) had undergone laparoscopy and 72 (41.9%) had undergone open surgery. TME was complete in 68 (69.3%), near-complete in 30 (31%), and incomplete in 0 patients who underwent laparoscopic resection, versus 52 (72.2%), 20 (27.8%), and 0 patients who underwent open surgery; P, 0.554. The mean proximal margin was 11.1 cm (standard deviation [SD], 4.9) in the laparoscopic compared to 8.9 cm (SD, 6.5) in the open cohort; P, 0.434. The mean distal margin was 4.3 cm (SD, 2) in the laparoscopic group and 8 cm (SD, 6.6) in the open surgical group; P, 0.036. There were no cases in either group in which the proximal or distal margins were involved. The mean nodal count was also similar between the two groups: 10 (SD, 9.4) in the laparoscopic resection cohort and 9 (SD, 7.5) in the open surgery cohort; P, 0.475. Conclusions: Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery leads to similar pathological outcomes as open surgery. This study contributes to the evidence for oncologic safety of laparoscopic rectal cancer resections in patients with disease staged up to T3.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9427,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer Research, Statistics, and Treatment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer Research, Statistics, and Treatment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/crst.crst_168_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Research, Statistics, and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/crst.crst_168_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要输出背景:直肠全系膜切除术(TME)是直肠癌外科治疗的主要方法,可通过开放或腹腔镜技术实现。先前的荟萃分析证实了腹腔镜手术的短期益处,发现总生存率和无病生存率没有差异,但腹腔镜手术与开放手术的病理结果数据存在差异。目的:比较腹腔镜下与开放式直肠癌切除术的病理结果。材料和方法:LapPath(腹腔镜-病理)研究是一项回顾性观察性研究,对2017年11月至2020年4月在印度南部喀拉拉邦坎努尔区Thalassery的三级癌症医院Malabar癌症中心接受手术的直肠癌患者进行了研究。我们根据患者是否接受腹腔镜或开放手术来划分队列,并比较两组的各种病理结果,包括TME质量、淋巴结计数、远端和近端边缘。结果:我们纳入170例患者,其中98例(57%)行腹腔镜手术,72例(41.9%)行开放手术。腹腔镜切除术患者TME完全68例(69.3%),接近完全30例(31%),不完全0例,开放手术患者52例(72.2%),20例(27.8%)和0例;0.554 P。腹腔镜组的平均近端切缘为11.1 cm(标准差[SD], 4.9),而开放组的平均近端切缘为8.9 cm (SD, 6.5);0.434 P。腹腔镜组远端切缘平均为4.3 cm (SD, 2),开放手术组平均为8 cm (SD, 6.6);0.036 P。两组均无近端或远端边缘受累的病例。两组的平均淋巴结数也相似:腹腔镜切除组为10个(SD, 9.4),开放手术组为9个(SD, 7.5);0.475 P。结论:腹腔镜直肠癌手术的病理结果与开放手术相似。本研究为分期至T3期的腹腔镜直肠癌切除术的肿瘤学安全性提供了证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The LapPath study: Comparison of pathologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open rectal cancer surgery—A retrospective analysis from a tertiary cancer center in South India
ABSTRACT Export Background: Total mesorectal excision (TME), which is the mainstay of the surgical management of carcinoma rectum, can either be achieved by open or laparoscopic techniques. Short-term benefits of laparoscopy were confirmed in previous meta-analyses, which found no difference in overall and disease-free survival, but data on pathologic outcomes of laparoscopy versus open surgery are heterogeneous. Objectives: The objective was to compare the pathological outcomes of laparoscopic with open rectal cancer resection. Materials and Methods: The LapPath (laparoscopic–pathological) study was a retrospective observational study conducted on patients with rectal cancers who underwent surgery between November 2017 and April 2020 at the Malabar Cancer Center, a tertiary cancer hospital in Thalassery, Kannur district in Kerala, South India. We divided the cohort based on whether the patients underwent laparoscopic or open surgery and compared various pathological outcomes in the two groups, including the quality of TME, nodal count, distal, and proximal margins. Results: We enrolled 170 patients, 98 (57%) had undergone laparoscopy and 72 (41.9%) had undergone open surgery. TME was complete in 68 (69.3%), near-complete in 30 (31%), and incomplete in 0 patients who underwent laparoscopic resection, versus 52 (72.2%), 20 (27.8%), and 0 patients who underwent open surgery; P, 0.554. The mean proximal margin was 11.1 cm (standard deviation [SD], 4.9) in the laparoscopic compared to 8.9 cm (SD, 6.5) in the open cohort; P, 0.434. The mean distal margin was 4.3 cm (SD, 2) in the laparoscopic group and 8 cm (SD, 6.6) in the open surgical group; P, 0.036. There were no cases in either group in which the proximal or distal margins were involved. The mean nodal count was also similar between the two groups: 10 (SD, 9.4) in the laparoscopic resection cohort and 9 (SD, 7.5) in the open surgery cohort; P, 0.475. Conclusions: Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery leads to similar pathological outcomes as open surgery. This study contributes to the evidence for oncologic safety of laparoscopic rectal cancer resections in patients with disease staged up to T3.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
142
审稿时长
13 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