We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Totally laparoscopic resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) has more advantages comparing with laparoscopic-assisted resection for selected patients with sigmoid colon or rectal cancer.
International Journal of Colorectal Disease 2014 September
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to compare the short-term outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) and laparoscopic-assisted resection for sigmoid colon cancer or rectal cancer and to appraise whether totally laparoscopic resection with NOSE had more advantages compared with conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection.
METHODS: Sixty-five patients who underwent totally laparoscopic resection with NOSE were assigned to NOSE group, and 132 patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted resection were assigned to laparoscopic-assisted (LA) group. Data of all 197 cases were reviewed. Short-term outcomes (including operative outcomes, gastrointestinal recovery, hospital stay, and complication) of the two groups were compared.
RESULTS: Mean numbers of lymph nodes harvested were 17.0 ± 8.3 and 18.9 ± 11.6 in NOSE group and LA group, respectively, (P = 0.248); mean operative times were 111.6 ± 25.4 min and 115.3 ± 23.0 min in the two groups (P = 0.384); and the mean blood losses in these two groups were 70.2 ± 66.1 ml and 126.3 ± 58.6 ml, respectively, (P < 0.001). Times to first flatus were 2.7 ± 0.8 and 3.4 ± 0.9 days (P < 0.001), and times to first defecation were 3.3 ± 0.6 and 3.9 ± 1.1 days (P = 0.002) in NOSE group and LA group, respectively. Hospital stay in NOSE group were 9.0 ± 1.9 and 9.9 ± 2.0 days in LA group. Incidences of peri-operative complications were 6.2 and 17.2% in the two groups, respectively (P = 0.031).
CONCLUSIONS: Without compromising oncologic outcome, totally laparoscopic resection with NOSE had more advantages including less blood loss, less pain, faster recovery of intestinal function and shorter hospital stay compared with laparoscopic-assisted resection for selected patients with sigmoid colon cancer or rectal cancer.
METHODS: Sixty-five patients who underwent totally laparoscopic resection with NOSE were assigned to NOSE group, and 132 patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted resection were assigned to laparoscopic-assisted (LA) group. Data of all 197 cases were reviewed. Short-term outcomes (including operative outcomes, gastrointestinal recovery, hospital stay, and complication) of the two groups were compared.
RESULTS: Mean numbers of lymph nodes harvested were 17.0 ± 8.3 and 18.9 ± 11.6 in NOSE group and LA group, respectively, (P = 0.248); mean operative times were 111.6 ± 25.4 min and 115.3 ± 23.0 min in the two groups (P = 0.384); and the mean blood losses in these two groups were 70.2 ± 66.1 ml and 126.3 ± 58.6 ml, respectively, (P < 0.001). Times to first flatus were 2.7 ± 0.8 and 3.4 ± 0.9 days (P < 0.001), and times to first defecation were 3.3 ± 0.6 and 3.9 ± 1.1 days (P = 0.002) in NOSE group and LA group, respectively. Hospital stay in NOSE group were 9.0 ± 1.9 and 9.9 ± 2.0 days in LA group. Incidences of peri-operative complications were 6.2 and 17.2% in the two groups, respectively (P = 0.031).
CONCLUSIONS: Without compromising oncologic outcome, totally laparoscopic resection with NOSE had more advantages including less blood loss, less pain, faster recovery of intestinal function and shorter hospital stay compared with laparoscopic-assisted resection for selected patients with sigmoid colon cancer or rectal cancer.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app