Copyright
©The Author(s) 2023.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Oct 27, 2023; 15(10): 2142-2153
Published online Oct 27, 2023. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v15.i10.2142
Published online Oct 27, 2023. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v15.i10.2142
Baseline characteristics | R-NOSES I-F (n = 22) | RLRC (n = 76) | Ρ value |
Age (year) | 56.5 ± 8.9 | 59.5 ± 11.1 | 0.107 |
BMI (kg/m2) | 21.8 ± 2.5 | 22.6 ± 2.0 | 0.136 |
Gender | 0.580 | ||
Male | 8 (36.4) | 45 (59.2) | |
Female | 14 (63.6) | 31 (40.8) | |
ASA score | 0.552 | ||
I, II | 5 (22.7) | 11 (14.5) | |
III | 17 (77.3) | 65 (85.5) | |
Previous history of abdominal surgery | 4 (18.2) | 13 (17.1) | 1.000 |
Maximum circumferential diameter of specimen (cm) | 0.217 | ||
< 5 | 19 (86.4) | 56 (73.7) | |
≥ 5 | 3 (13.6) | 20 (26.3) | |
Tumour location from anal verge (cm) | 4.3 ± 1.2 | 4.5 ± 0.9 | 0.278 |
Abnormal serum CEA (ng/mL) | 0.700 | ||
≤ 5 | 16 (72.7) | 52 (68.4) | |
> 5 | 6 (27.3) | 24 (31.6) | |
Specimen length (cm) | 11.4 ± 2.2 | 12.8 ± 3.1 | 0.068 |
Distal margin (cm) | 1.1 ± 0.7 | 1.1 ± 0.8 | 0.737 |
Grade of differentiation | 0.976 | ||
Well | 3 (13.6) | 12 (15.8) | |
Moderate | 16 (72.7) | 52 (68.4) | |
Poor | 2 (9.1) | 7 (9.2) | |
Mucinous | 1 (4.5) | 5 (6.6) | |
T stage | 0.376 | ||
T0, Tis, T1 | 6 (27.3) | 12 (15.8) | |
T2 | 7 (31.8) | 17 (22.4) | |
T3 | 5 (22.7) | 27 (35.5) | |
T4 | 4 (18.2) | 20 (26.3) | |
N Stage | 0.511 | ||
N0 | 14 (63.6) | 46 (60.5) | |
N1 | 7 (31.8) | 20 (26.3) | |
N2 | 1 (4.5) | 10 (13.2) | |
pTNM | 0.110 | ||
0, I | 12 (54.5) | 23 (30.3) | |
II | 4 (18.2) | 23 (30.3) | |
III | 6 (27.3) | 30 (39.5) | |
Number of lymph nodes harvested (n) | 14.2 ± 7.3 | 13.7 ± 6.0 | 0.759 |
Nerve violation | 9 (40.9) | 30 (39.5) | 0.904 |
Lymphovascular violation | 7 (31.8) | 17 (22.4) | 0.364 |
Outcomes | R-NOSES I-F (n = 22) | RLRC (n = 76) | Ρ value |
Surgery time (min) | 173.0 ± 39.5 | 187.3 ± 50.9 | 0.389 |
Intraoperative blood loss (mL) | 89.6 ± 47.9 | 74.5 ± 62.8 | 0.068 |
Prophylactic stoma, n (%) | 7 (31.8) | 36 (47.4) | 0.196 |
VAS score | |||
POD1 | 1.7 ± 0.7 | 2.2 ± 0.6 | 0.003 |
POD3 | 1.5 ± 0.6 | 1.6 ± 0.6 | 0.411 |
POD5 | 1.1 ± 0.6 | 1.2 ± 0.4 | 0.247 |
Time to pass flatus (d) | 2.7 ± 0.6 | 3.5 ± 0.7 | < 0.001 |
Postoperative hospital stay (d) | 11.1 ± 5.2 | 9.9 ± 5.1 | 0.091 |
Hospitalization costs ($) | 85098.7 ± 11067.9 | 82267.9 ± 14993.9 | 0.130 |
Postoperative complications, n (%) | 0.632 | ||
Anastomosis Leakage, n (%) | 2 (9.1) | 2 (2.6) | |
Pelvic hemorrhage | 0 | 1 (1.3) | |
Abdominal infection | 0 | 1 (1.3) | |
Ileus, n (%) | 1 (4.5) | 1 (1.3) | |
Incision infection, n (%) | 0 | 2 (2.6) | |
Incisional hernia of the abdominal wall, n (%) | 0 | 4 (5.3) | |
Urinary retention | 0 | 1 (1.3) | |
White blood cell count (× 109/L) | |||
POD1 | 9.0 ± 2.8 | 9.4 ± 2.9 | 0.462 |
POD3 | 7.6 ± 2.2 | 8.5 ± 3.0 | 0.321 |
POD5 | 6.8 ± 2.1 | 8.1 ± 4.3 | 0.112 |
Neutrophil count (× 109/L) | |||
POD1 | 7.8 ± 2.6 | 8.1 ± 2.7 | 0.579 |
POD3 | 6.0 ± 2.0 | 6.6 ± 3.0 | 0.563 |
POD5 | 5.1 ± 2.0 | 5.9 ± 2.7 | 0.266 |
Body temperature (℃) | |||
POD1 | 36.9 ± 0.4 | 37.0 ± 0.4 | 0.600 |
POD2 | 37.1 ± 0.6 | 36.9 ± 0.4 | 0.057 |
POD3 | 37.0 ± 0.4 | 36.9 ± 0.4 | 0.295 |
POD4 | 36.8 ± 0.4 | 36.7 ± 0.4 | 0.300 |
POD5 | 36.9 ± 0.7 | 36.7 ± 0.5 | 0.166 |
Outcomes | R-NOSES I-F (n = 22) | RLRC (n = 76) | Ρ value |
Postoperative chemotherapy | 0.995 | ||
XELOX | 7 (31.8) | 24 (31.6) | |
Fluorouracil monotherapy | 3 (13.6) | 11 (14.5) | |
Defecation and urination function scores | |||
Wexner | 4.9 ± 2.6 | 5.2 ± 3.1 | 0.817 |
LARS | 15.3 ± 9.1 | 12.8 ± 10.1 | 0.177 |
IPSS | 3.7 ± 4.6 | 3.5 ± 2.9 | 0.255 |
Status at last follow-up | 0.291 | ||
Local recurrence | 1 (4.5) | 0 | |
Liver metastasis | 0 | 4 (5.3) | |
Lung metastasis | 0 | 3 (3.9) | |
Pelvic metastasis | 0 | 2 (2.6) | |
Dead | 0 | 2 (2.6) |
- Citation: Tao F, Liu DN, He PH, Luo X, Xu CY, Li TY, Duan JY. Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery I-type F method vs conventional robotic resection for lower rectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Surg 2023; 15(10): 2142-2153
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v15/i10/2142.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v15.i10.2142