Two-port laparoscopic anterior resection through a self-made glove device versus conventional laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparison of short-term surgical results

Zhang, Hong; Ling, Yunzhi; Cong, Jinchun; Cui, Mingming; Chen, Chunsheng

doi:10.1186/s12957-016-1029-8

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…and one anastomotic bleeding, and none of these occurred in the TLS group. However, there was no difference in the total number of complications between the two groups, similar to the findings of most studies (21)(22)(23)(24)(25). Therefore, the safety of TLS in the perioperative period was to that of CLS.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Clinical application of two-port laparoscopic surgery in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection

Jiang,

Ji,

Jin

et al. 2023

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn the field of minimally invasive surgery, the two-port laparoscopic surgery is on the rise. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of two-port laparoscopic surgery (TLS) for resecting sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancers compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).MethodsThe clinical data of patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoid colon cancer and upper rectal cancer resection at the Department of General Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical College between July 2019 and January 2022 were retrospectively collected. Grouped according to different laparoscopic surgery. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria,A total of 81 patients were enrolled, of the 25 patients from the TLS group,and of the 56 patients from the CLS group. We mainly compared whether there were statistical differences between the two groups in terms of operative time, intraoperative bleeding, incision length, time to first ambulation, time to first flatus, time to first defecation, postoperative complication rate, and other surgical outcomes.ResultsThere was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of baseline clinical characteristics (P > 0.05). In terms of the surgical outcomes, there were statistical differences in the total incision length (TLS: 6.21 ± 0.67 cm, CLS: 8.64 ± 1.08 cm, P < 0.001)), time to first ambulation (TLS: 2.0 ± 0.7 d, CLS:3.1 ± 0.9 d, P < 0.001), time to first flatus (TLS: 2.5 ± 0.8 d, CLS: 3.0 ± 0.8 d, P = 0.028), time to first defecation (TLS: 3.8 ± 1.3 d, CLS: 5.1 ± 2.1 d, P = 0.010), and time for liquid diet (TLS: 4.3 ± 1.4 d, CLS: 5.3 ± 1.9 d, P = 0.021). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of the pathology (P > 0.05).ConclusionIn terms of safety, TLS in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection is comparable to CLS. However, its incision is smaller and more aesthetic, and it causes lesser trauma than CLS. Additionally, it is also superior to CLS in postoperative recovery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Clinical application of two-port laparoscopic surgery in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection

Jiang,

Ji,

Jin

et al. 2023

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One RCT [ 103 ] (n = 40) and six comparative studies [ 104 – 109 ] (n = 670), in which SIES and multi-port rectal surgery were compared were retrieved from the literature. Three of the six comparative studies started the SIES rectal resection already with one extra port.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLaparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.MethodsAn expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.ResultsIn general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.ConclusionsConsidering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

show abstract

“…Laparoscopic surgery has many advantages, such as a clear vision of operation, small incision, mild postoperative pain, and short hospital stay [ 25 – 27 ]. Especially, to pursue better treatment benefits, many laparoscopic surgery regimens have been improved, such as 3D laparoscopy, robotic surgery, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, two-port laparoscopic anterior resection, and LAR with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE-LAR) [ 28 – 32 ]. Moreover, some researchers proposed that sphincter-saving rectal resections can be seen as a feasible alternative to extra levator abdominoperineal resection or transanal total mesorectal excision [ 33 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The efficacy of ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis

Zhao

et al. 2021

World J Surg Onc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Protective ileostomy is always applied to avoid clinically significant anastomotic leakage and other postoperative complications for patients receiving laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, whether it is necessary to perform the ileostomy is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to analyze the efficacy of ileostomy on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Methods Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PubMed were applied for systematic search of all relevant literature, updated to May 07, 2021. Studies compared patients with and without ileostomy for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. We applied Review Manager software to perform this meta-analysis. The quality of the non-randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), and the randomized studies were assessed using the Jadad scale. Results We collected a total of 1203 references, and seven studies were included using the research methods. The clinically significant anastomotic leakage rate was significantly lower in ileostomy group (27/567, 4.76%) than that in non-ileostomy group (54/525, 10.29%) (RR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.30–0.73, P for overall effect = 0.0009, P for heterogeneity = 0.18, I2 = 32%). However, the postoperative hospital stay, reoperation, wound infection, and operation time showed no significant difference between the ileostomy and non-ileostomy groups. Conclusion The results demonstrated that protective ileostomy could decrease the clinically significant anastomotic leakage rate for patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, ileostomy has no effect on postoperative hospital stay, reoperation, wound infection, and operation time. The efficacy of ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis.

show abstract

Two-port laparoscopic anterior resection through a self-made glove device versus conventional laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparison of short-term surgical results

Cited by 6 publications

References 30 publications

Clinical application of two-port laparoscopic surgery in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection

Clinical application of two-port laparoscopic surgery in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

The efficacy of ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About