Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prospective multicenter study of reduced port surgery combined with transvaginal specimen extraction for colorectal cancer resection

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgery Today Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The relevance of transvaginal specimen extraction (TVSE) combined with reduced port surgery (RPS) remains unknown. This study investigated the feasibility of TVSE with RPS according to short-term outcomes and cosmesis.

Methods

This prospective multicenter study enrolled ten patients at three institutions. For the semi-quantification of each parameter, we administered questionnaires to assess pain (visual analogue scale), subjective/objective wound healing esthetics [photo series questionnaires (PSQ)], and quality of life (QOL).

Results

No operative complications occurred, except one case of urinary tract infection, which was promptly cured with antibiotics. On day 0, pain was rated at 2.3 ± 0.67 at rest and 4.9 ± 0.82 during sneezing; these ratings gradually declined over time. The PSQ showed that the patient ratings of wound esthetics after TVSE were not inferior to ratings from patients after conventional laparoscopy or single incision laparoscopic surgery, and they were significantly higher than the patient ratings of wounds after laparotomy (P < 0.05). The QOL scores showed that, in comparison to before surgery, after surgery, patients reported significant deterioration of their physical function (96.67 ± 1.49 vs. 87.33 ± 2.71), emotional function (93.33 ± 2.72 vs. 86.67 ± 2.22), fatigue (7.78 ± 3.72 vs. 26.67 ± 8.31), and pain (6.67 ± 3.69 vs. 18.33 ± 4.61).

Conclusion

TVSE with RPS for colorectal cancer was feasible and was associated with a low degree of postoperative pain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lacy AM, García-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, Castells A, Taura P, Pique JM, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359:2224–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, Jeekel J, Kazemier G, Bonjer HJ, et al. Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:477–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:1718–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hewett PJ, Allardyce RA, Bagshaw PF, Framptom CM, Frizelle FA, Rieger NA, et al. Short-term outcomes of the Australasian randomized clinical study comparing laparoscopic and conventional open surgical treatments for colon cancer: the ALCCaS trial. Ann Surg. 2008;248:728–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Neudecker J, Klein F, Bittner R, Carus T, Stroux A, Schwenk W, et al. Short-term outcomes from a prospective randomized trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;96:1458–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hemandas AK, Abdelrahman T, Flashman KG, Slull AJ, Senapati A, O’Leary DP, et al. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery produces better outcomes for high risk cancer patients compared to open surgery. Ann Surg. 2010;252:84–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Yamamoto S, Inomata M, Katayama H, Mizusawa J, Etoh T, Konishi F, et al. Short-term surgical outcomes from a randomized controlled trial to evaluate laparoscopic and open D3 dissection for stage II/III colon cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG 0404. Ann Surg. 2014;260:23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2050–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lacy AM, Delgado S, Castells A, Prins HA, Arroyo V, Ibarzabal A, et al. The long-term results of a randomized clinical trial of laparoscopy-assisted versus open surgery for colon cancer. Ann Surg. 2008;248:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fleshman J, Sargent DJ, Green E, Anvari M, Stryker SJ, Beart RW Jr, et al. Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5-year data from the COST Study Group trial. Ann Surg. 2007;246:655–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. The Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study Group. Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:44–52.

  12. Jayne DG, Thorpe HC, Copeland J, Quirke P, Brown JM, Guillou PJ. Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2010;97:1638–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kitano S, Inomata M, Mizusawa J, Katayama H, Watanabe M, Yamamoto S, et al. Survival outcomes following laparoscopic versus open D3 dissection for stage II or III colon cancer (JCOG0404): a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2:261–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Curcillo PG, Podolsky ER, King SA. The road to reduced port surgery: from single big incisions to single small incisions, and beyond. World J Surg. 2011;35:1526–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gagner M, Garcia-Ruiz A. Technical aspects of minimally invasive abdominal surgery performed with needlescopic instruments. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1998;8:171–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kalloo AN, Singh VK, Jagannath SB, Niiyama H, Hill SL, Vaughn CA, et al. Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:114–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Diana M, Perretta S, Wall J, Wall J, Costantino FA, Leroy J, et al. Transvaginal specimen extraction in colorectal surgery: current state of the art. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13:104–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nishimura A, Kawahara M, Honda K, Ootani T, Kakuta T, Kitami C, et al. Totally laparoscopic anterior resection with transvaginal assistance and transvaginal specimen extraction: a technique for natural orifice surgery combined with reduced-port surgery. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:4734–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. TNM classification of malignant tumors. 7th ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mori T, Kimura T, Kitajima M. Skilled accreditation system for laparoscopic gastroenterological surgeons in Japan. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2010;19:18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Collins SL, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. The visual analogue pain intensity scale: what is moderate pain in millimetres? Pain. 1997;72:95–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bergman B, Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Kaasa S, Sullivan M. The EORTC QLO-LC 13: a modular supplement to the EORTC core quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) for use in lung cancer clinical trials. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30:635–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dunker MS, Stiggelbout AM, van Hogezand RA, Ringers J, Griffioen G, et al. Cosmesis and body image after laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease. Surg Endosc. 1998;12:1334–400.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Rattner D, Kalloo A. ASGE/SAGES working group on natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Surg Endsc. 2006;20:329–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. McGee MF, Rosen MJ, Marks J, Onders RP, Chak A, Faulx A, et al. A primer on natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: building a new paradigm. Surg Innov. 2006;13:86–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Giday SA, Kantsevoy SV, Kalloo AN. Principle and history of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2006;15:373–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Baron TH. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Br J Surg. 2007;94:1–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lamadé W, Hochberger J. Transgastric surgery: avoiding pitfalls in the development of a new technique. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006; 63:698–700

  29. Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH, Jang YS, Kim HJ, Park SY, et al. Clinical outcome of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with transvaginal resection, anastomosis, and retrieval of specimen. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53:1473–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Awad Z. Laparoscopic total colectomy with transvaginal extraction of the colon and ileorectal anastomosis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wolthuis AM, Fieuws S, Van Den Bosch A, de Buck van Overstraeten A, D’Hoore A. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic colectomy with or without natural-orifice specimen extraction. Br J Surg. 2015;102:630–37.

  32. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Statistics Japan; 2018. https://www.stat.go.jp/english/index.html.

  33. Trichak S. Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1434–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Poon CM, Chan KW, Lee DW, Chan KC, Cheung HY, Lee KW. Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1624–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Hiraki M, Takemasa I, Uemura M, Haraguchi N, Nishimura J, Hata T, et al. Evaluation of invasiveness in single-site laparoscopic colectomy, using the PainVision™ system for quantitative analysis of pain sensation. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:3216–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kang SB, Park JW, Jeong SY, Nam BH, Choi HS, Kim DW, et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomized controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:637–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jayne DG, Guillow PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AMH, et al. Randomised trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3061–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 562-0015, Japan

    Hidekazu Takahashi, Atsushi Hamabe, Tsuyoshi Hata & Ichiro Takemasa

  2. Department of Colorectal and Pelvic Surgery, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba, 227-8577, Japan

    Yuji Nishizawa & Masaaki Itoh

  3. Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology, Nagaoka Chuo General Hospital, 2041 Kawasaki-cho, Nagaoka, Niigata, 940-8653, Japan

    Atsushi Nishimura

  4. Department of Surgery, Surgical Oncology and Science, Sapporo Medical University, S-1, W-17, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 060-8543, Japan

    Atsushi Hamabe & Ichiro Takemasa

Authors
  1. Hidekazu Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Atsushi Hamabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tsuyoshi Hata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuji Nishizawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Atsushi Nishimura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Masaaki Itoh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ichiro Takemasa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ichiro Takemasa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest in association with the present study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Takahashi, H., Hamabe, A., Hata, T. et al. Prospective multicenter study of reduced port surgery combined with transvaginal specimen extraction for colorectal cancer resection. Surg Today 50, 734–742 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-019-01946-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-019-01946-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation