Comparison Between Reduced-port Laparoscopic And Conventional Five-port Laparoscopic Anterior Resection For Middle/upper Rectal Cancer

ObjectiveTo compare the differences between reduced port laparoscopic anterior resection(RPLAR) and conventional five-port laparoscopic anterior resection(CFPLAR) for the middle/ upper rectal cancer and to investigate the safety and feasibility of RPLS for the patients of middle/ upper rectal cancer.MethodsTo review retrospectively the clinic data of 50 patients with upper/middle rectal cancer from March 2014 to June 2015 in the department of General Surgery of the Affiliated Cancer of Zhengzhou University, which undergoing anterior resection by laparoscopic surgery. Patients were divided into reduced-port laparoscopic anterior resection group(20 cases) and conventional five-port laparoscopic anterior resection group(30 cases). To compare surgical indicators, postoperative late indicators,pathological indicators. To evaluate the surgical efficacy and safety. Data were analyzed by SPSS 19.0 software.ResultsComparison of reduced-port laparoscopic anterior resection and conventional five-port laparoscopic anterior resection for the middle/upper rectal cancer in operative time(P =0.094), intraoperative blood loss(P =0.794), incision length(P=0.070), fart first time after surgery(P =0.108), postoperative hospital stay(P=0.099), tumor size(P =0.992), the number of lymph node metastasis(P =0.149), the number of lymph nodes dissected(P =0.092), and distal resection margin(P =0.138),there were no statistically significant differences(P>0.05). The anastomotic leakage occurred 2 cases(10%) in the reduced-port laparoscopic anterior resection group and3cases(10%) in the conventional five-port laparoscopic anterior resection group, and the rate of the anastomotic leakage of the two groups(P =1), there was no statistically difference.ConclusionsRPLAR is safe and feasible. Compared with CFPLAR in postoperative recovery and the results of oncological radicality, it had a similar curative effect. It has better cosmetic, less trauma and lower cost. It is worth of performing widely.