Advertisement

 

 

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.

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.
Author Information (click to view)

Zhang H, Ling Y, Cong J, Cui M, Liu D, Chen C,


Zhang H, Ling Y, Cong J, Cui M, Liu D, Chen C, (click to view)

Zhang H, Ling Y, Cong J, Cui M, Liu D, Chen C,

Advertisement
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

World journal of surgical oncology 2016 Oct 2614(1) 275
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The laparoscopic approach has become increasingly incorporated into the development of new surgical procedures. An ever-increasing number of surgeons desire methods that minimize surgical trauma and provide improved cosmetic outcomes. Since 2014, we have performed two-port laparoscopic surgery using a transumbilical multichannel glove port and a 12-mm port. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term surgical results of two-port laparoscopic anterior resection (TPLAR) with those of conventional laparoscopic anterior resection (CLAR) for rectal cancer.

METHODS
Between January 2014 and May 2014, a total of 27 patients underwent TPLAR and 30 patients underwent CLAR for the treatment of rectal cancer. The short-term surgical results of these two groups of patients were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS
The differences in operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, complication rate, distal resection margin, number of harvested lymph nodes, duration until ambulation, duration until first flatus, length of postoperative hospital stay, and overall hospital costs between the two groups were not significant. The median (range) length of the abdominal incisions of the TPLAR patients was shorter than the length of the CLAR patients (5.1 (4.5-16.3) cm vs 8.2 (7.0-10.0) cm, respectively; p < 0.001). The respective median (range) postoperative pain scores were lower in the TPLAR than in the CLAR patients at 24 h (4 (1-6) h vs 5 (2-8) h; p = 0.045), 48 h (3 (1-4) h vs 4 (range 1-8) h; P = 0.004) and 72 h (1 (0-3) h vs 2 (1-5) h; p = 0.010). The median overall score on the satisfaction-with-abdominal-incision questionnaire of the TPLAR patients was significantly higher (better) than the score of the CLAR patients. CONCLUSIONS
TPLAR for rectal cancer is safe and feasible, with short-term perioperative and oncological outcomes similar to those of CLAR. TPLAR provides less postoperative pain and better cosmetic outcomes.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

six − 5 =

[ HIDE/SHOW ]