Short‐ And medium‐term outcomes of reduced‐port laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients with upper rectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study

Wu, Huawen; Zheng, Zhijian; Xu, Lewei; Wu, Y F; Guan, Ziyi; Li, Wenhuan; Chen, Guofu

doi:10.1002/cam4.3070

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, a meta-analysis indicated a shorter hospital stay in patients with gastric cancer who underwent RPLS compared with those who underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery, further demonstrating that RPLS accelerates patient recovery[ 20 ]. Similar to our results, Wu et al [ 21 ] found that RPLS has significant advantages over multi-port laparoscopic surgery in reducing surgical incision length, alleviating postoperative pain, shortening the time to first postoperative anal exhaust, and promoting early ambulation in elderly patients with upper rectal cancer.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Influence of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery on perioperative indicators, postoperative recovery, and serum inflammation in patients with colorectal carcinoma

Wu,

Liu,

Liu

et al. 2024

World J Gastrointest Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Conventional five-port laparoscopic surgery, the current standard treatment for colorectal carcinoma (CRC), has many disadvantages. AIM To assess the influence of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) on perioperative indicators, postoperative recovery, and serum inflammation indexes in patients with CRC. METHODS The study included 115 patients with CRC admitted between December 2019 and May 2023, 52 of whom underwent conventional five-port laparoscopic surgery (control group) and 63 of whom underwent RPLS (research group). Comparative analyses were performed on the following dimensions: Perioperative indicators [operation time (OT), incision length, intraoperative blood loss (IBL), and rate of conversion to laparotomy], postoperative recovery (first postoperative exhaust, bowel movement and oral food intake, and bowel sound recovery time), serum inflammation indexes [high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and interleukin-6 (IL-6)], postoperative complications (anastomotic leakage, incisional infection, bleeding, ileus), and therapeutic efficacy. RESULTS The two groups had comparable OTs and IBL volumes. However, the research group had a smaller incision length; lower rates of conversion to laparotomy and postoperative total complication; and shorter time of first postoperative exhaust, bowel movement, oral food intake, and bowel sound recovery; all of which were significant. Furthermore, hs-CRP, IL-6, and TNF-α levels in the research group were significantly lower than the baseline and those of the control group, and the total effective rate was higher. CONCLUSION RPLS exhibited significant therapeutic efficacy in CRC, resulting in a shorter incision length and a lower conversion rate to laparotomy, while also promoting postoperative recovery, effectively inhibiting the inflammatory response, and reducing the risk of postoperative complications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Influence of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery on perioperative indicators, postoperative recovery, and serum inflammation in patients with colorectal carcinoma

Wu,

Liu,

Liu

et al. 2024

World J Gastrointest Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A reducedport laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) was proposed to overcome these limitations. This is where the abdomen incisions or ports can be reduced as much as possible to complete the laparoscopic procedure [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduced-port laparoscopic colectomy with D3-lymph node dissection and transvaginal specimen extraction (NOSES VIIIa) for right colon cancer: clinical features

Efetov,

Cao,

Panova

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) is the minimum possible number of ports or small-sized ports in laparoscopic surgery. Although the damage has been reduced compared to conventional laparoscopic (CL) surgery, a mini-laparotomy (ML) is still required to extract the specimen. The combination of RPLS and natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) minimizes the damage of the procedure. Methods: First group, we present the surgical approach of RPLS and extract the specimen via vaginal. Second group, we present the CL and extract the specimen through mini-laparotomy. We highlight the first surgical approach that includes preoperative preparation, key steps during the operation, and postoperative outcomes Results: A total of 17 patients with right colon adenocarcinoma, 5 of them underwent RPLS-NOSE, and other 12 patients underwent conventional laparoscopic (CL) surgery and extract specimen by mini-laparotomy (CL-ML). Compare with CL-ML, RPLS-NOSE associated with longer operative time (289 min vs 231 min, P < 0.001), less bleeding (60 ml vs 90 ml, P = 0.025), short hospitalization (8.2 days vs 13.6 days, P<0.001), faster first flatus (1.8 days vs 3.4 days, P<0.001), less postoperative pain on first day (2.8 vs 4.25, P = 0.019). Regarding to lymph node harvest, bowal movement, R0 resection, postoperative comlications, postoperative pain on day 3 and day 5, no significant difference was observed. Conclusion: In selected patients, RPLS with D3-lymph node dissection and transvaginal specimen extraction is safe, results in fast recovery, and is indicated for colon cancer patients.

show abstract

Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopy surgery versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy surgery for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Kong,

Wu,

Yan

et al. 2024

Int J Colorectal Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The efficacy of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colorectal cancer treatment remains unclear. This study compares the short-term and long-term outcomes of SILS + 1 and CLS using a high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis. Method Literature search followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, drawing from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library until December 10, 2023. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan and Stata. Result The review and meta-analysis included seven studies with 1740 colorectal cancer patients. Compared to CLS, SILS + 1 showed significant improvements in operation time (WMD = − 18.33, P < 0.00001), blood loss (WMD = − 21.31, P < 0.00001), incision length (WMD = − 2.07, P < 0.00001), time to first defecation (WMD = − 14.91, P = 0.009), time to oral intake (WMD = − 11.46, P = 0.04), and time to ambulation (WMD = − 11.52, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in lymph node harvest, resection margins, complications, anastomotic leakage, hospital stay, disease-free survival, overall survival, and postoperative recurrence. Conclusions Compared to CLS, SILS + 1 demonstrates superiority in shortening the surgical incision and promoting postoperative recovery. SILS + 1 can provide a safe and feasible alternative to CLS.

show abstract

Short‐ And medium‐term outcomes of reduced‐port laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients with upper rectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study

Cited by 4 publications

References 27 publications

Influence of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery on perioperative indicators, postoperative recovery, and serum inflammation in patients with colorectal carcinoma

Influence of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery on perioperative indicators, postoperative recovery, and serum inflammation in patients with colorectal carcinoma

Reduced-port laparoscopic colectomy with D3-lymph node dissection and transvaginal specimen extraction (NOSES VIIIa) for right colon cancer: clinical features

Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopy surgery versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy surgery for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About