Abstract
Robotic resection is widely used to treat colorectal cancer. Although the novel natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) results in less trauma, its safety and effectiveness are relatively unknown. In the present study, we used propensity score matching to compare the effectiveness and safety of NOSES and robotic resection for treating colorectal cancer. Present retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent robotic colon and rectal cancer surgery between January 2016 and December 2019 at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. The intraoperative time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative recovery, postoperative complications, and survival status of the conventional robotic colorectal cancer resection (CRR) (78 patients) and NOSES (89 patients) groups were compared. These results showed that no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of early postoperative complications, operation time, and the number of lymph nodes dissected. Compared with the CRR group, NOSES group had shorter postoperative exhaust time [3.06 (0.76) vs. 3.53 (0.92)], earlier eating time [4.12 (1.08) vs. 4.86 (1.73)], lesser intraoperative bleeding [51.23 (26.74) vs. 67.82 (43.44)], lesser degree of pain [80.8% vs. 55.1%], and shorter length of hospital stay [8.73 (2.02) vs. 9.50 (3.45)]. All these parameters were statistically significant (P < 0.05). However, no significant differences were observed in the 3-year overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate between both groups (P > 0.05). Collectively, robotic NOSES is a safe and effective approach for treating rectal and sigmoid colon cancers, could decrease intraoperative bleeding and postoperative complications, and accelerate the speed of intestinal function recovery.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68(6):394–424
Keum N, Giovannucci E (2019) Global burden of colorectal cancer: emerging trends, risk factors and prevention strategies. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 16(12):713–732
Cao W, Chen HD, Yu YW, Li N, Chen WQ (2021) Changing profiles of cancer burden worldwide and in China: a secondary analysis of the global cancer statistics 2020. Chin Med J (Engl) 134(7):783–791
Kosinski L, Habr-Gama A, Ludwig K, Perez R (2012) Shifting concepts in rectal cancer management: a review of contemporary primary rectal cancer treatment strategies. CA Cancer J Clin 62(3):173–202
Park EJ, Baik SH (2016) Robotic surgery for colon and rectal cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 18(1):5
Feng Q, Yuan W, Li T et al (2022) Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer (REAL): short-term outcomes of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 7(11):991–1004
Driouch J, Thaher O, Brinkmann S, Bausch D, Glatz T (2023) Robotic-assisted rectosigmoid resection rectopexy with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE): technical notes, short-term results, and functional outcome. Langenbecks Arch Surg 408(1):177
Zhou JJ, Li TG, Lei SL et al (2020) Analysis of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery on 162 cases with rectal neoplasms. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi 23(4):384–389
Liu D, Luo R, Wan Z et al (2020) Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone versus robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction: a matched analysis. Sci Rep 10(1):12848
Ye SP, Yu HX, Liu DN et al (2023) Comparison of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in short-terms outcomes of middle rectal cancer. World J Surg Oncol 21(1):196
Yao H, Li T, Chen W et al (2021) Role of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in colorectal neoplasms. Sci Rep 11(1):9818
Finnerty CC, Mabvuure NT, Ali A, Kozar RA, Herndon DN (2013) The surgically induced stress response. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 37(5 Suppl):21S-S29
Efetov SK, Tulina IA, Kim VD, Kitsenko Y, Picciariello A, Tsarkov PV (2019) Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery with rectal eversion and total extra-abdominal resection. Tech Coloproctol 23(9):899–902
Chen C, Chen H, Yang M et al (2019) Laparoscopy-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction to treat tumors of the sigmoid colon and rectum: the short- and long-term outcomes of a retrospective study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 29(6):801–808
Zhang M, Liu Z, Sun P, Hu X, Zhou H, Jiang Z, Tang J, Liu Q, Wang X (2023) Preliminary surgical outcomes of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with transrectal specimen extraction: a propensity score matching study of 120 cases (with video). Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 11:goad036
Zattoni D, Popeskou GS, Christoforidis D (2018) Left colon resection with transrectal specimen extraction: current status. Tech Coloproctol 22(6):411–423
Shimizu H, Adachi K, Ohtsuka H, Osaka I, Takuma K, Takanishi K, Matsumoto J (2017) Totally laparoscopic resection for low sigmoid and rectal cancer using natural orifice specimen extraction techniques. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 27(4):e74–e79
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213
Li L, Liu K, Li T, Zhou J, Xu S, Yu N, Guo Z, Yao H (2023) Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional robotic resection for patients with colorectal neoplasms. Front Oncol 17(13):1153751
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
This work was supported by Hunan Natural Science Foundation (2023JJ60262).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Nanhui Yu performed the surgical operation. Yongpan Huang and Nanhui Yu performed the postoperative follow-up. Yongpan Huang and Nanhui Yu performed statistical analysis. Yongpan Huang and Nanhui Yu collected the clinical data and performed the preoperative preparation.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that no competing interests to be declared.
Ethical approval
This study was approved by Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University.
Consent to participate
All the patients were consented to participate.
Consent for publication
All the patients gave consent for publication.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Huang, Y., Yu, N. Comparison of the safety and efficacy of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional robotic colorectal cancer resection: a propensity score matching study. J Robotic Surg 18, 175 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-01904-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-01904-y