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

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic anterior resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) avoids extra abdominal extraction incision during colorectal surgery. Some surgeons realized the benefits of NOSE on clinical efficacy. We compared the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic NOSE, laparoscopic non-NOSE and open surgery (OS) for short-term recovery and quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

A single randomized controlled trial of NOSE for middle and upper rectal cancer between April 2014 and February 2018. Preoperative and postoperative clinical variables were analyzed and compared between the groups. Preoperative and 6 months postoperative QoL was assessed with the SF-36 QoL questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 378 patients were enrolled, 334 patients randomly divided into NOSE group (n=104), non-NOSE group (n=119), OS group (n=111). The NOSE group was superior to the other two groups on the QoL after surgery. The NOSE group had the lowest postoperative VAS score between three groups. The postoperative time for bowel function recovery and the length of hospital stay was statistically significantly different among the three groups, with the NOSE group having the shortest time. The incidence of postoperative complications was lower in the NOSE group (12/104, 11.5%) than in the non-NOSE group (20/119, 16.8%), the difference was statistically significant. The Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival curve showed no statistically significant difference in the disease-free survival (DFS) rate between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparing NOSE to non-NOSE and OS, the NOSE had significantly better functional recovery and better QoL. The NOSE group had a significant lower surgical complication rate than the non-NOSE group.

Informations de copyright

2020 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jgo.2020.03.05). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.