Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Front Surg ; 10: 1141672, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36960211

ABSTRACT

Background: The incidence of rectal cancer is increasing each year. Robotic surgery is being used more frequently in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer; however, several problems associated with robotic surgery persist, such as docking the robot repeatedly to perform auxiliary incisions and difficulty exposing the operative field of obese patients. Herein we introduce a new technology that effectively improves the operability and convenience of robotic rectal surgery. Objectives: To simplify the surgical procedure, enhance operability, and improve healing of the surgical incision, we developed an advance incision (AI) technique for robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection, and compared its safety and feasibility with those of intraoperative incision. Methods: Between January 2016 and October 2021, 102 patients with rectal cancer underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection with an AI or intraoperative incision (iOI) incisions. We compared the perioperative, incisional, and oncologic outcomes between groups. Results: No significant differences in the operating time, blood loss, time to first passage of flatus, time to first passage of stool, duration of hospitalization, and rate of overall postoperative complications were observed between groups. The mean time to perform auxiliary incisions was shorter in the AI group than in the iOI group (14.14 vs. 19.77 min; p < 0.05). The average incision length was shorter in the AI group than in the iOI group (6.12 vs. 7.29 cm; p < 0.05). Postoperative incision pain (visual analogue scale) was lower in the AI group than in the iOI group (2.5 vs. 2.9 p = 0.048). No significant differences in incision infection, incision hematoma, incision healing time, and long-term incision complications, including incision hernia and intestinal obstruction, were observed between groups. The recurrence (AI group vs. iOI group = 4.0% vs. 5.77%) and metastasis rates (AI group vs. iOI group = 6.0% vs. 5.77%) of cancer were similar between groups. Conclusion: The advance incision is a safe and effective technique for robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection, which simplifies the surgical procedure, enhances operability, and improves healing of the surgical incision.

2.
Surg Today ; 52(8): 1202-1211, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35546641

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We introduced a novel colorectal anastomotic technique, double-angle anastomosis combined with the double stapling technique (DAA-DST), to simplify the anastomosis step during natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and compared its safety and effectiveness with purse string anastomosis combined with the double stapling technique (PSA-DST). METHODS: Between January 2018 and March 2021, 63 patients with colorectal cancer underwent NOSES with DAA-DST or PSA-DST. We compared the perioperative and oncological outcomes between the groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the operation time, blood loss, time to first passage of flatus and excrement or hospital stay duration between PSA-DST and DAA-DST groups. The overall postoperative complication rates were similar (DAA-DST vs PSA-DST, 21.2% vs 26.7%, p = 0.78), including the rate of anastomotic leakage (6.1% vs 10%, p = 0.91). The rate of successful DAA-DST was higher than that of PSA-DST (100% vs 93.3%). The DAA-DST group had a lower rate of positive drain fluid culture than the PSA-DST group (18.2% vs 26.7% p = 0.61). Recurrence (3.01% vs 6.67%, p = 0.93) and metastasis rates (6.06% vs 6.67%, p = 0.98) were similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: DAA-DST is a safe and effective procedure and can simplify the procedure of NOSES.


Subject(s)
Anastomosis, Surgical , Colorectal Neoplasms , Laparoscopy , Anastomosis, Surgical/methods , Anastomotic Leak/epidemiology , Anastomotic Leak/etiology , Anastomotic Leak/prevention & control , Colorectal Neoplasms/complications , Colorectal Neoplasms/surgery , Humans , Laparoscopy/methods , Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery , Rectum/surgery , Retrospective Studies
3.
World J Gastrointest Surg ; 13(3): 303-314, 2021 Mar 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33796217

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: With advancements in laparoscopic technology and the wide application of linear staplers, sphincter-saving procedures are increasingly performed for low rectal cancer. However, sphincter-saving procedures have led to the emergence of a unique clinical disorder termed anterior rectal resection syndrome. Colonic pouch anastomosis improves the quality of life of patients with rectal cancer > 7 cm from the anal margin. But whether colonic pouch anastomosis can reduce the incidence of rectal resection syndrome in patients with low rectal cancer is unknown. AIM: To compare postoperative and oncological outcomes and bowel function of straight and colonic pouch anal anastomoses after resection of low rectal cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 72 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent sphincter-saving procedures with either straight or colonic pouch anastomoses. Functional evaluations were completed preoperatively and at 1, 6, and 12 mo postoperatively. We also compared perioperative and oncological outcomes between two groups that had undergone low or ultralow anterior rectal resection. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in mean operating time, blood loss, time to first passage of flatus and excrement, and duration of hospital stay between the colonic pouch and straight anastomosis groups. The incidence of anastomotic leakage following colonic pouch construction was lower (11.4% vs 16.2%) but not significantly different than that of straight anastomosis. Patients with colonic pouch construction had lower postoperative low anterior resection syndrome scores than the straight anastomosis group, suggesting better bowel function (preoperative: 4.71 vs 3.89, P = 0.43; 1 mo after surgery: 34.2 vs 34.7, P = 0.59; 6 mo after surgery: 22.70 vs 29.0, P < 0.05; 12 mo after surgery: 15.5 vs 19.5, P = 0.01). The overall recurrence and metastasis rates were similar (4.3% and 11.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Colonic pouch anastomosis is a safe and effective procedure for colorectal reconstruction after low and ultralow rectal resections. Moreover, colonic pouch construction may provide better functional outcomes compared to straight anastomosis.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...