Clinical efficacy and quality of life after transrectal natural orifice specimen extraction for the treatment of middle and upper rectal cancer

Comparative long-term outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic colectomy for left-sided colorectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is currently widely used in left-sided colorectal cancer. Some clinical comparative studies have been conducted, providing evidence of its safety and oncological benefits. However, these studies are typically characterized by small sample sizes and short postoperative follow-up periods. Consequently, in this research, the authors adopt the propensity score matching method to undertake a large-scale retrospective comparative study on NOSES colectomy for left-sided colorectal cancer, with the goal of further augmenting the body of evidence-based medical support for NOSES.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved patients who underwent NOSES colectomy and conventional laparoscopic (CL) colectomy for left-sided colorectal cancer between January 2014 and April 2021. In the NOSES group, specimens were extracted through the anus with the help of a Cai tube (homemade invention: ZL201410168748.2). The patients were matched at a ratio of 1:1 according to age, sex, BMI, tumor diameter, tumor location (descending and splenic flexure colon/ sigmoid colon/ middle and upper rectum), tumor height from anal verge, ASA grade, previous abdominal surgery, clinical pathologic stage, preoperative CEA. After matching, 132 patients in the NOSES group and 132 patients in the CL group were eligible for analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with CL group, NOSES group was associated with decreased postoperative maximum pain score (2.6±0.7 vs. 4.7±1.7, P=0.000), less additional analgesia required (6.8 vs. 34.8%, P=0.000), faster time to passage of flatus (2.3±0.6 days vs. 3.3±0.7 days, P=0.000), less wound infection (0.0 vs. 6.1%, P=0.007), and longer operative time (212.5±45.8 min vs. 178.0±43.4 min, P=0.000). No significant differences were observed in estimated blood loss, time to resume regular diet, postoperative hospital stay, conversion to open surgery or conventional minilaparotomy, total morbidity, readmission, mortality, pathologic outcomes, and Wexner incontinence score between groups. After a median follow-up of 63.0 months, the 5-year overall survival rates were 88.3 versus 85.0% (P=0.487), disease-free survival rates were 82.9 versus 83.6% (P=0.824), and the local recurrence rates were 4.4 versus 4.0% (P=0.667) in the NOSES and CL groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that NOSES colectomy using a Cai tube for left-sided colorectal cancer is a safe and feasible option with better cosmetic results, less pain, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, and comparable long-term clinical and oncologic outcomes to CL colectomy.

[Transanal specimen extraction after left-sided laparoscopic colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short-term results after left-sided laparoscopic colectomy with transanal and transabdominal specimen extraction.

MATERIAL LAND METHODS

We selected 998 appropriate manuscripts and subsequently excluded 995 ones due to exclusion criteria. Thus, the meta-analysis was based on 3 randomized trials in accordance with PRISMA recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 353 patients were enrolled in meta-analysis including 169 resections with transanal specimen extraction and 184 surgeries with transabdominal extraction. Overall risk of postoperative complications (OR=0.60; 95% CI 0.31-1.14; p=0.12) including anastomotic leakage (OR=1.83; 95% CI 0.43-7.89; p=0.42) was similar in both groups. At the same time, severity of pain syndrome (mean difference = -2.35; 95% CI -2.51-2.19), time to the first flatus discharge (mean difference = -0.92; 95% CI -0.99-0.85) and postoperative hospital stay (mean difference = -1.5; 95% CI -2.03-0.98) were significantly lower in the group of transanal extraction (p<0.00001).

CONCLUSION

Transanal specimen extraction in left-sided laparoscopic colectomy does not increase overall risk of postoperative complications. In addition, the NOSE technique has some advantages in short-term results compared to procedures with transabdominal specimen extraction.

Which site is better for prophylactic ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery? By the specimen extraction site or new site: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

There is controversy about the outcomes of prophylactic ileostomy via the specimen extraction site (SES) after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS). We, therefore, performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of stoma through the SES versus new site (NS).

Methods

All relevant studies from 1997 to 2022 were searched in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP databases. This meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software 5.3 for statistical analysis.

Results

7 studies with 1736 patients were included. The present meta-analysis noted that prophylactic ileostomy via SES was associated with a higher risk of overall stoma-related complications, especially parastomal hernia (OR, 2.39, 95% CI 1.43-4.00; p=0.0008). No statistical difference was found in terms of wound infection, ileus, stoma edema, stoma prolapse, stoma necrosis, stoma infection, stoma bleeding, stoma stenosis, skin inflammation around the stoma, stoma retraction and postoperative pain score on postoperative day 1 and 3 between SES group and NS group. However, prophylactic ileostomy via SES was associated with lesser blood loss (MD = -0.38, 95% CI: -0.62 - -0.13; p=0.003), shorter operation time(MD = -0.43, 95% CI: -0.54 - -0.32 min; p<0.00001), shorter post-operative hospital stay (MD = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.43 - -0.08; p=0.004), shorter time to first flatus(MD = -0.23, 95% CI: -0.39 - -0.08; p=0.003) and lower postoperative pain score on postoperative day 2.

Conclusion

Prophylactic ileostomy via SES after LRCS reduces new incision, decreases operative time, promotes postoperative recovery, and improves cosmetic outcomes, but may increase the incidence of parastomal hernias. The vast majority of parastomal hernias can be repaired by closing the ileostomy, therefore SES remain an option for temporary ileostomy after LRCS.

Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction colectomy using a Cai tube for left-sided colon cancer: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction (LA-NOSE) colectomy in the treatment of left-sided colon cancer has not been well defined, and there remains confusion about how to conveniently exteriorize specimens through natural orifices. Therefore, we introduced a homemade invention, the Cai tube, to facilitate the extraction of specimens and compared the clinical outcomes of LA-NOSE with conventional laparoscopic (CL) colectomy for left-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

From March 2015 to August 2017, patients with left-sided colon cancer were randomly divided into LA-NOSE and CL groups. Specimens were extracted through the anus with the help of a Cai tube (Patent Number: ZL201410168748.2) in the LA-NOSE group. The primary outcome measure was postoperative pain. Secondary outcomes were the duration of operation, postoperative recovery, surgical morbidity, pathological quality of the specimen, and long-term outcomes, including 3-year overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and overall recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients (30 per group) were recruited for this study. None of the patients required emergency conversion to conventional laparoscopic or open surgery during the operation. The postoperative maximum pain score was significantly lower in the LA-NOSE group (mean 2.5 vs. 5.1, P = 0.001), as was the additional analgesia requirement (mean 2/30 vs. 10/30, P = 0.021). Patients in the LA-NOSE group experienced a shorter first time to passage of flatus (mean 2.2 vs. 3.1 days, P = 0.026). All patients could control their defecation at 6 months after surgery. The comparison between the two groups showed no significant differences in the operative time, bleeding volume, postoperative hospital stay, surgical morbidity rates, number of lymph nodes harvested, or resection margin status. The mean follow-up was 48 months (range 7-59) and was similar in both groups. The results showed no differences in long-term outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In the treatment of left-sided colon cancer, compared with conventional laparoscopic colectomy, LA-NOSE colectomy using the Cai tube exhibited lower postoperative pain, shorter recovery of gastrointestinal function, and similar long-term outcomes.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR-OOR-15007060 ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/ ).

Laparoscopic Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery versus Conventional Surgery in Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

This study was to quantitatively synthesize data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of laparoscopic resection comparing natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) versus conventional laparoscopy (CL) in colorectal cancer.

Methods

We identified eligible RCTs by searching seven electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, CQVIP, Wanfang, and Sinomed). Mean differences (MDs) between groups with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for continuous outcomes. Event rate ratios (RRs) were also calculated with their 95% CIs.

Results

1,569 citations were identified from electronic database as of June 2020, and finally, 21 RCTs involving 2,112 patients met the study eligibility criteria and were included. Compared to the CL group, NOSE had longer operation time (MD: 8.14 min, 95% CI: 3.02 to 13.25, and p < 0.01), less estimated blood loss (-10.64 ml, 95% CI: -14.92 to -6.36, and p < 0.01), less hospital stay after surgery (-2.21 days, 95% CI: -3.36 to -1.06, and p < 0.01), shorter time of gas passage after surgery (-0.58 days, 95% CI: -0.82 to -0.34, and p < 0.01), better pain score (-1.06, 95% CI: -3.74 to -0.37, and p < 0.01), and improved cosmetic scores (1.93, 95% CI: 0.77 to 3.10, p < 0.01). Rate ratios of total complications, infection, and incision infection all favored NOSE surgery, with RRs (95% CIs) of 0.81 (0.71 to 0.93), 0.34 (0.21 to 0.54), and 0.24 (0.12 to 0.51), respectively.

Conclusion

This report appeared the first comprehensive meta-analysis of RCTs to synthesize data of laparoscopic resection with NOSE versus conventional laparoscopy. NOSE surgery seemed favorable with shorter hospital stay, less pain score, a shorter time to recover along with better cosmetic scores, and less postoperative complications.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) is a technique that involves collecting a specimen for extraction through a natural opening avoiding a mini-laparotomy incision. The aim of this study was to compare NOSE and transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic (LAP) colorectal cancer surgery for postoperative outcomes and oncological safety.

Method

A systematic search was conducted in five electronic databases from inception till October 2020. Articles were selected based on the inclusion criteria (studies comparing LAP and NOSE colorectal surgeries reporting at least one of the outcomes) and analysed. Primary outcomes included postoperative complications, pathological results (resection margins and lymph node collection), and oncological outcomes. Secondary outcomes included operating time, blood losses, use of analgesics, functional recovery, duration of hospital stay, and cosmetic results. Fixed and random-effect models were used to measure the pooled estimates.

Results

Nineteen studies involving a total of 3432 participants were analysed (3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 16 retrospective non-randomized studies). Pooled results showed significantly reduced postoperative complications (OR 0.54; 95 per cent c.i. 0.44 to 0.67; P < 0.00001). Pathological outcomes of NOSE were comparable to LAP with no significant difference noted in terms of resection margins (P > 0.05) and lymph node collection (weighted mean difference (WMD) −0.47; 95 per cent c.i. −0.94 to 0; P = 0.05). Pooled analysis demonstrated comparable long-term outcomes in terms of cancer recurrence (OR 0.94; 95 per cent c.i. 0.63 to 1.39; P = 0.75), 5-year disease-free survival (HR 0.97; 95 per cent c.i. 0.73 to 1.29; P = 0.83), and overall survival (HR 0.93, 95 per cent c.i. 0.58 to −1.51; P = 0.78). Finally, the NOSE group had decreased use of additional analgesia after surgery and earlier resumption of oral intake when compared with LAP (respectively OR 0.28; 95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.37; P < 0.00001 and WMD −0.35; 95 per cent c.i. −0.54 to −0.15; P = 0.0005).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis showed that in comparison with LAP, NOSE decreases severe postoperative morbidity while improving postoperative recovery without compromising oncological safety, but it is limited by the small number of RCTs performed in this field.

The natural orifice specimen extraction surgery compared with conventional laparoscopy for colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of efficacy and long-term oncological outcomes

PURPOSE

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has gradually become established in treating colorectal cancer. This meta-analysis assesses NOSES in the treatment of colorectal cancer compared with conventional laparoscopy (CL) and determines the effect of long-term prognosis.

METHODS

Various medical databases were searched up to May 2021. We included retrospective and randomized trials on the treatment of colorectal cancer with NOSES. Pooled weighted/standardized mean differences (WMD/SMD), odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using either fixed- or random-effects models. STATA was conducted for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 16 studies comprising 2266 patients. Compared with CL, NOSES had more benefits in terms of overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.47, 95%CI [0.35,0.64]; Z = 4.91, P < 0.001), incision-related complications (OR = 0.15, 95%CI [0.07,0.31]; Z = 4.97, P < 0.001), time to first flatus (SMD = -0.58, 95%CI [-0.68,-0.48]; Z = 11.21, P < 0.001), hospital stay (WMD = -1.03, 95%CI [-1.55,-0.51]; Z = 3.86, P < 0.001), cosmetic scores (WMD = 1.37, 95%CI [0.59,2.14]; Z = 3.47, P = 0.001), the visual analogue scale on postoperative day 1（WMD = -1.46, 95%CI [-2.39,-0.52]; Z = 3.06, P = 0.002), additional analgesics usage (OR = 0.33, 95%CI [0.26, 0.43]; Z = 8.43, P < 0.001), whereas the operative time of NOSES was prolonged (WMD = 13.09, 95%CI [7.07,19.11]; Z = 4.26, P < 0.001). Postoperative anastomotic complications, intra-abdominal infection, pelvic floor function, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph node dissection, 3-year disease-free and overall survival in the NOSES group were comparable with those in the CL group.

CONCLUSIONS

NOSES is a safe and reliable surgical procedure for the treatment of colorectal cancer and provides good long-term oncological outcomes. Large-scale multicenter studies are required to confirm its clinical benefits.

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.

The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery versus laparoscopic NOSE for sigmoid and rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery with natural orifice specimen extraction (La-NOSE) is being performed more frequently for the minimally invasive management of sigmoid and rectal cancer. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and oncological safety and efficacy of La-NOSE versus conventional laparoscopy (CL).

METHODS

A search of the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed for studies that compared clinical or oncological outcomes of conventional laparoscopic resection using NOSE with conventional laparoscopic resection for sigmoid and rectal cancer.

RESULTS

Compared with CL group, the length of hospital stay and the pain score on the first day were shorter in the La-Nose group. The La-NOSE group had a lower incidence of total perioperative complications (OR 0.46; 95% CI [0.32 to 0.66]; I² = 0%; P < 0.0001) and a lower incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) (OR 0.11; 95% CI [0.04 to 0.29]; I² = 0%; P < 0.0001) than the CL group, while the anastomotic leakage showed no significant difference between the La-Nose group and the CL group (P = 0.19). 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year overall survival (OS) were no significant difference between the La-Nose group and the CL group (P = 0.43, P = 0.40, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

La-NOSE can achieve oncological and surgical safety comparable to that of CL for patients with sigmoid and rectal cancer. La-NOSE in patients was associated with a shorter hospital stay, shorter time to first flatus or defecation, less postoperative pain, and fewer surgical site infections (SSIs) and total perioperative complications. In general, the operative time in La-NOSE was longer than that in CL. The long-term oncological efficacy of La-NOSE seems to be equivalent to that of CL.