Transrectal natural orifice specimen extraction in left hemicolectomy for tumours around the splenic flexure: Old wine in new bottles

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.

Comparison of short-term and medium-term outcomes between intracorporeal anastomosis and extracorporeal anastomosis for laparoscopic left hemicolectomy

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated the feasibility and safety of intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) for left hemicolectomy. Here, we aimed to investigate the potential advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic left hemicolectomy with IA and compare the short- and medium-term outcomes between IA and extracorporeal anastomosis (EA).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 133 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic left hemicolectomies from July 2016 to September 2019 and categorized them into the IA and EA groups. Patients with stage 4 disease and conversion to laparotomy or those lost to follow-up were excluded. Postoperative outcomes between IA and EA groups were compared. Short-term outcomes included postoperative pain score, bowel function recovery, complications, duration of hospital stay, and pathological outcome. Medium outcomes included overall survival and disease-free survival for at least 2 years.

RESULTS

After excluding ineligible patients, the remaining 117 underwent IA (n = 40) and EA (n = 77). The IA group had a shorter hospital stay, a shorter time to tolerate liquid or soft diets, and higher serum C-reactive protein level on postoperative day 3. There was no difference between two groups in operative time, postoperative pain, specimen length, or nearest margin. A 2-year overall survival (IA vs. EA: 95.0% vs. 93.5%, p = 0.747) and disease-free survival (IA vs. EA: 97.5% vs. 90.9%, p = 0.182) rates were comparable between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic left hemicolectomy with IA was technically feasible, with better short-term outcomes, including shorter hospital stays and shorter time to tolerate liquid or soft diets. The IA group had higher postoperative serum C-reactive protein level; however, no complications were observed. Regarding medium-term outcomes, the overall survival and disease-free survival rates were comparable between IA and EA procedures.