Case Control Study
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 28, 2014; 20(44): 16707-16713
Published online Nov 28, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i44.16707
Table 1 Patient information
CaseAgeGenderTumor size (mm)TNM stageOperation time (min)Suturing time (min)Blood lossComplicationWexner incontinence score
3 mo 6 mo
163F30T2N02141310-00
272F22T1N02522090-00
347F35T3N03152410Anal pain00
470M38T3N034320150Ischemic colitis61
562M20T1N031223228-00
677M35T3N025617200-10
765M38T3N12601335Leakage10
872F15T1N034515203-00
965M26T2N02621327-00
1066M23T2N028018120-00
1170F20T1N024713118-00
1246M18T1N02771892-00
1356F22T1N02501430-00
1468F18T1N029111145Anastomotic ulcer00
1557F33T2N0267895-00
1640M15T1N02811030-00
1765M22T1N13559245-00
1877M50T3N027715150-00
1963M35T3N021513192-00
2060M25T2N027111116-00
Table 2 Comparison with conventional laparoscopic surgery
Conventional LAPComplete LAP
Age66.3 ± 1163.7 ± 9
Tumor size (mm)38.5 ± 1827 ± 9
Dissected lymph node (count)17.5 ± 8.817.7 ± 7.7
Blood loss (mL)120 ± 56114 ± 72
Operation time (min)240 ± 77278 ± 39
Count of usage of analgesic (times)5.89 ± 2.861.85 ± 1.8a
Term of pain (d)3.43 ± 1.411.9 ± 1.9a
Orally take (d)4.3 ± 0.94 ± 1.4
Hospital stay (d)11.2 ± 3.211.0 ± 3
Suture failure4 cases1 case
SSI8 casesNone