Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: A single-center case series

Short-term outcomes of Transrectal Natural Orifice Specimen extraction compared with conventional minimally invasive surgery for selected patients with colorectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis and literature review

PURPOSE

Conventional minimally invasive surgery requires mini-laparotomy to extract the pathological specimen. However, by using a natural orifice as the delivery route, natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery avoids the need for a large incision. This study analyzed the short-term outcome of NOSE compared with conventional mini-laparotomy (CL) for colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 1,189 patients who underwent surgery for primary colorectal cancer between the cecum and upper rectum. Propensity score analyses were applied to the NOSE and CL groups in a 1:1 matched cohort.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, each group included 201 patients. The NOSE group and CL group did not differ significantly in terms of baseline characteristics. Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were comparable. Compared with the CL group, the NOSE group experienced a shorter time to first flatus (1.6 ± 0.8 vs. 2.0 ± 1.2 days, p < 0.001), first stool (2.7 ± 1.5 vs. 4.1 ± 1.9, p < 0.001), liquid diet (2.3 ± 1.3 vs. 3.6 ± 1.8 days, p < 0.001), soft diet (3.9 ± 2.0 vs. 5.2 ± 1.9 days, p < 0.001) and a shorter hospital stay (5.1 ± 3.5 vs. 7.4 ± 4.8 days, p < 0.001). The NOSE group exhibited lower mean pain intensity and lower highest pain intensity on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3.

CONCLUSION

NOSE has several advantages over conventional mini-laparotomy following minimally invasive surgery for colon cancer. These advantages include reduced time to oral intake, shorter hospital stays, and less postoperative pain. NOSE can be adopted and applied to highly selective patients without additional risk of short-term complications.

Meta-analysis of robotic-assisted NOSE versus traditional TWSR in colorectal cancer surgery: postoperative outcomes and efficacy

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSE) compared to traditional robotic transabdominal wall specimen retrieval surgery (TWSR) for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Embase) from inception to August 2023. Primary outcomes included postoperative complications, the number of lymph nodes harvested, overall survival and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score, the additional use of analgesics, the restoration of gastrointestinal function, blood loss, the mean operation time, and length of postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, a total of 717 patients from 6 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the TWSR group, the NOSE group had greater benefits in terms of overall postoperative complications [odds ratios (OR) 0.55; 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.34 to 0.89; P = 0.01, I2 = 0%)], the number of lymph nodes harvested [weighted mean differences (WMD) = 1.18; 95% CI = 0.15 to 2.21; P = 0.02, I2 = 0%)], the rate of wound infection (OR 0.17; 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.80; P = 0.02, I2 = 0%), the passed flatus time (WMD =  - 0.35 days; 95% CI =  - 0.60 to - 0.10; P = 0.007, I2 = 73%), the additional use of analgesics (OR 0.25; 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.40; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), the diet recovery time (WMD =  - 0.56; 95% CI =  - 1.00 to - 0.11; P = 0.01, I2 = 78%) and the postoperative VAS score (WMD =  - 1.23; 95% CI =  - 1.63 to - 0.83; P < 0.001, I2 = 65%). There were no significant differences in the blood loss (WMD =  - 5.78 ml; 95% CI =  - 17.57 to 6.00; P = 0.34, I2 = 90%), mean operation time (WMD = 14.10 min; 95% CI =  - 3.76 to 31.96; P = 0.12) (I2 = 93%), length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD =  - 0.47 day; 95% CI =  - 0.98 to 0.03; P = 0.07, I2 = 51%), incidences of postoperative ileus (OR 1.0; 95% CI = 0.22 to 4.46; P = 1.00, I2 = 0%), anastomotic leakage (OR 0.73; 95% CI = 0.33 to 1.60; P = 0.43, I2 = 0%), and intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.59; 95% CI = 0.47 to 5.40; P = 0.46, I2 = 0%), or 3-year overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.60 to 1.94; P = 0.81)] or disease-free survival (HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.54 to 1.63; P = 0.82, I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that the NOSE group had better postoperative outcomes than did the TWSR group and that NOSE was a safe and viable alternative to TWSR. More large-sample reviews and further randomized trials are warranted.

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus robotic transabdominal specimen extraction surgery for early-stage rectal cancer: a multicenter propensity score-matched analysis (in China)

BACKGROUND

Despite the global increase in the adoption of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (R-NOSES), its advantages over robotic transabdominal specimen extraction surgery (R-TSES) for treating early-stage rectal cancer remain debated. There is scant nationwide, multicenter studies comparing the surgical quality and short-term outcomes between R-NOSES and R-TSES for this condition.

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective cohort study was conducted nationally across multiple centers to compare the surgical quality and short-term outcomes between R-NOSES and R-TSES in early-stage rectal cancer.

DESIGN

Multicenter retrospective cohort trial.

SETTING

Eight experienced surgeons from 8 high-volume Chinese colorectal cancer treatment centers.

PATIENTS

The study included 1086 patients who underwent R-NOSES or R-TSES from October 2015 to November 2023 at the 8 centers. Inclusion criteria were: (1) histologically confirmed rectal adenocarcinoma; (2) robotic total mesorectal excision; (3) postoperative pathological staging of TisN0M0 or T1-2N0M0; (4) availability of complete surgical and postoperative follow-up data. Patients were matched 1:1 in the R-NOSES and R-TSES groups using the propensity score matching (PSM) technique.

RESULTS

After PSM, 318 matched pairs with well-balanced patient characteristics were identified. The operation time for the R-NOSES group was significantly longer than that for the R-TSES group [140 min (125-170 min) vs. 140 min (120-160 min), P = 0.032]. Conversely, the times to first flatus and initial oral intake in the R-NOSES group were significantly shorter than those in the R-TSES group [48 h (41-56 h) vs. 48 h (44-62 h), P = 0.049 and 77 h (72-94 h) vs. 82 h (72-96 h), P = 0.008], respectively. Additionally, the length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the R-NOSES group compared with the R-TSES group [7 day (7-9 day) vs. 8 day (7-9 day), P = 0.005]. The overall postoperative complication rates were similar between the groups (10.7% in the R-NOSES group vs. 11.9% in the R-TSES group, P = 0.617). However, the R-NOSES group had a lower incidence of wound complications compared to the R-TSES group (0.0% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.015). Regarding surgical stress response, the R-NOSES group showed superior outcomes. Additionally, patients in the R-NOSES group required fewer additional analgesics on postoperative days 1, 3, and 5 and reported lower pain scores compared to the R-TSES group. The body image scale (BIS) and cosmetic scale (CS) scores were also significantly higher in the R-NOSES group. Furthermore, the R-NOSES group demonstrated significantly better outcomes in functional dimensions such as physical, role, emotional, social, and cognitive functioning, and in symptoms like fatigue and pain, when compared to the R-TSES group.

LIMITATIONS

It is imperative to ensure the safe and standardized implementation of R-NOSES through the establishment of a uniform training protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

These results affirm that R-NOSES is a safe and effective treatment for early-stage rectal cancer when meticulously executed by skilled surgeons.

Thoracolaparoscopic radical resection of esophagogastric junction cancers with a NOSE-like approach to extract large specimens

To investigate the efficacy and safety of combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic radical resection of esophagogastric junction cancers using a natural orifice specimen extraction-like approach for extraction of large surgical specimens. Patients who had esophagogastric junction cancers treated with thoracolaparoscopic resection using the natural orifice specimen extraction-like approach for specimen extraction were retrospectively enrolled. A 5-cm transverse incision on the abdominal wall at the middle of the superior pubic symphysis was made for surgical specimen extraction. The clinical, surgical, complications, and follow-up data were analyzed. A total of 162 patients were enrolled, and the surgery was successful in all patients (100%). The total surgical duration ranged 165 to 270 minutes, with blood loss 20 to 150 mL, hospital stay 8 to 22 days, first flatus time 2 to 7 days, extubation time of drainage tubes 1 to 26 days, first oral feeding time 5 to 10 days, number of lymph nodes resected 15 to 39, postoperative ambulation time 1 to 2 days, and postoperative residual rate of cancerous cells at the surgical margins 0. Postoperative complications occurred in 14 (8.6%), including anastomotic leakage in 4 (2.5%), anastomotic stenosis in 3 (1.9%), hydrothorax in 4 (2.5%), and incision infection in 3 (1.9%). At follow-up (mean 12 months), all patients were alive, and the transverse incision was a linear scar concealed in the suprapubic pubic hair area. The combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery for radical resection of carcinomas at the esophagogastric junction is safe and effective, and a transverse incision at the suprapubic symphysis for specimen extraction results in improved minimal invasiveness and cosmesis.

Thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer with a cervical or abdominal incision to extract specimen

Surgery is the only curative approach for resectable esophageal cancer. This retrospective study was to investigate the immediate effect and operative complications of conventional and modified thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy with a cervical or abdominal incision to extract specimen for the treatment of patients with esophageal cancer. Eighty-one patients were enrolled, among which 55 patients underwent conventional McKeown thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy (conventional MTE) and 26 patients underwent modified MTE with a cerivical incision (modified MTE). The clinical, surgical, and postoperative data were analyzed. No significant (P > .05) difference was detected in the clinical data between two groups. The surgical procedure was successful in all patients (100%). The surgical time was significantly (P = .018) shorter in the conventional MTE group than in the modified MTE group (280 min vs 317 min). However, no significant (P > .05) difference was found in blood loss (200 mL vs 180 mL), intensive care unit (ICU) stay (31.3 ± 11.3 vs 25.2 ± 6.4 hours), first flatus after surgery (2.9 ± 1.9 vs 3.3 ± 1.6 days), postoperative hospital stay (12.9 ± 5.6 vs 12.6 ± 3.3 days), total number of lymph nodes dissected (27.9 ± 4.1 vs 26.7 ± 5.7), types of carcinoma, and pathological classification. No significant (P > .05) differences were detected in postoperative complications between the two groups. Assessment of postoperative pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS) score showed a significant (P < .05) difference in the VAS score at day 2 (4.81 ± 1.70 vs 3.87 ± 1.14) and day 3 (5.10 ± 0.83 vs 4.61 ± 1.12) between the conventional and modified MTE groups. The modified McKeown thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy with only one cervical incision is more minimally invasive, more cosmetic, and less painful than the conventional approach.

Case report: dual primary malignancies treated by laparoscopic multiorgan resection with natural orifice specimen extraction surgery

With microtrauma becoming a consensus, in order to improve surgical treatment capability, the clinical application of laparoscopic multiorgan resection is becoming more and more complicated and diversified. Recently, we successfully presented a case of transvaginal specimen extraction surgery that included laparoscopic anatomical left hemihepatectomy combined with laparoscopic total hysterectomy and bilateral adnexectomy and the pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. The patient, a 75-year-old woman, was hospitalized with abnormal vaginal discharge and bleeding. The pathologic diagnosis of uterine curettage was endometrioid adenocarcinoma. After completing examinations such as color Doppler ultrasound, CEUS, MRCP and thoracoabdominal enhanced spiral CT, preoperative diagnosis was considered as endometrial cancer and a space-occupying lesion in the liver (primary or secondary site)?. No lymphatic or distant metastasis had been found. We also excluded Lynch syndrome by digestive endoscopy and gene sequencing. After a multidisciplinary consultation, the patient underwent surgery under general anesthesia on 24 September 2021. The operation was completed uneventfully in 6 hours, then the patient was transferred to the ICU for follow-up monitoring. The patient began to eat and was able to leave bed on the 4th postoperative day. According to immunohistochemistry, the patient's postoperative diagnosis was intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and endometrial cancer. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic multiorgan resection with natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has many advantages such as fewer traumas, shorter recovery time, and better postoperative quality of life. However, combined large-scale laparoscopic surgeries of different organs can be challenging for surgeons and anesthesiologists. No similar cases have been searched.

Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery versus Conventional Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity-Score Matching Study

Background

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has been successfully applied to the treatment of gastric, colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the development of NOSES is still in the exploratory stage, and there is still no strong evidence-based medical evidence.

Patients and Methods

From January 2013 to June 2017, consecutive patients with colorectal cancer who underwent transluminal resection, anastomosis, and specimen extraction and those who underwent conventional laparoscopic resection were enrolled. Propensity score matching was used to align clinicopathological features between the two groups.

Results

A total of 372 patients were eventually included in this study, 186 in each group. According to perioperative information and postoperative follow-up in both groups, the NOSES group had less blood loss (P = 0.011), shorter time to recovery of gastrointestinal function (P < 0.001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.037). The NOSES group had fewer postoperative analgesics (P < 0.001), lower postoperative pain scores (P < 0.001), and lower incidence of postoperative complications (P = 0.017). Compared with the LA (laparoscopic) group, the NOSES group had better physical function (P<0.05), role function (P<0.001), emotional function (P<0.001) and global health status than LA group, while symptoms such as pain (P<0.001), insomnia (P<0.001), constipation (P<0.001) and diarrhea (P<0.05) were less severe in the NOSES group. In addition, the NOSES group had higher body image scores. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusion

For surgical treatment of colorectal cancer, NOSES has advantages in reducing postoperative pain, recovery of gastrointestinal function, postoperative quality of life, and improving patients' satisfaction with abdominal wall aesthetics. There was no difference in long-term survival between NOSES and conventional laparoscopic surgery.