| Objective: Through comparing case data to compare the Natural orifice specimen extraction on surgery,(NOSES)and laparoscopic assisted incision move specimens used in colorectal cancer radical related clinical effect,explore NOSES surgical technique in clinical safety,feasibility and efficacy of rectal cancer radical surgery,surgery to NOSES technology is worth popularizing in our hospital in colorectal cancer radical prostatectomy were used to provide theoretical reference basis.Methods: According to different removal way of rectal tumor specimens,the group is divided into the natural tract specimens(group NOSES)and laparoscopic assisted incision specimens group(LACR group)were retrospectively,controlled studies.Surgical duration,postoperative pain score(VAS score),postoperative activity time,postoperative fasting time,postoperative first exhaust time,postoperative catheter extubation time,postoperative catheter extubation time,postoperative complications and postoperative hospitalization time were used as the evaluation indicators.Results: 1.Twenty cases of NOSES group were collected,and Twenty-five cases in the laparoscopic assisted radical resection of rectal cancer group(LACR group).2.NOSES group was carried out in 9 males and 11 females with an average age of 60.05 years(60.05±12.06 years old).In the laparoscopic assisted radical resection of rectal cancer group(LACR group)was carried out in 17 males and 8 females with an average age of 58.88 years(58.88±7.60 years old).There was no statistical difference in gender or age between the two groups(P>0.05).3.In this study,all operations of the NOSES radical rectal cancer resection group and the laparoscopic-assisted radical rectal cancer resection group were completed successfully,and no intraoperative death occurred.In the NOSES group,no specimens were removed by incision,and the specimens were removed from the LACR group without intraoperative laparotomy..4.The time to get out of bed after NOSES rectal cancer radical surgery group(20.9±4.18 hour VS 53.76±18.69 hour,P<0.001),postoperative pain score(2.5±0.51 VS 3±0.65,P<0.01)was better than laparoscopic radical resection for rectal cancer.The difference was statistically significant.5.The operation time of NOSES rectal cancer radical operation group(177.5±37.26 min VS 193.2±40.69 min,P=0.228),the first exhaust time after operation(4.5±2.42 day VS 4.08±1.41 day,P=0.834),postoperative urination tube time(5.65±2.98 day VS 7.16±2.62 day,P=0.078),postoperative fasting time(6.45±2.42 day VS 6.64± 3.33 day,P=0.926),postoperative hospital stay(13.05±4.99 day VS 11.84±2.85 day,P=0.926)and laparoscopic assisted rectal cancer radical surgery group,the differrence was not statistically significant(P>0.05).6.There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the NOSES rectal cancer radical surgery group and the laparoscopic radical rectal cancer radical surgery group(P>0.05).Conclusion: Through this study,we found that NOSES rectal cancer radical surgery has obvious advantages in postoperative outpatient activity time and postoperative pain score compared with laparoscopic assisted rectal cancer radical surgery.The short-term results are satisfactory,reflecting the NOSES rectal cancer radical surgery.The trauma is small,the postoperative pain is light,and the benefits of getting out of bed early.At the same time,NOES rectal cancer radical surgery does not increase the incidence of postoperative complications of common rectal cancer such as anastomotic leakage,anastomotic bleeding,intestinal obstruction,etc.,suggesting that NOES rectal cancer radical surgery is safe and feasible,and has certain value for popularization and application..However,due to the fact that the radical resection of NOSES rectal cancer is still in its infancy,the collection of related cases is limited,which leads to the unsatisfactory results of other postoperative evaluation indexes of radical resection of rectal cancer.These need to be further studied. |
PDF Full Text Request