• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

秘鲁单中心回顾性队列研究:直肠癌保肛括约肌微创手术与开放手术的比较。

Open versus minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study in Peru.

机构信息

Abdominal Surgery Department, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas. Lima, Perú.

Propsective and Data Intelligence Unit, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas. Lima, Perú.

出版信息

Rev Gastroenterol Peru. 2022 Jan-Mar;42(1):33-40.

PMID:35896071
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to describe and compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery for rectal cancer in Peru.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective single-center analysis was performed for all patients who underwent sphinctersparing surgery for non-metastatic rectal cancer at Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas in Peru between January 2016 and December 2020. Clinical, perioperative, pathological, and survival outcomes were compared between both groups. A propensity score matching method was used to minimize bias.

RESULTS

162 patients were included in the final analysis. 124 had open surgery and 38 had MIS. Patients, clinical tumour, pathological characteristics, and perioperative were similar between groups after matching. Similar circumferential resection margin (CRM) with optimal quality of the mesorectum (p=1.000) but higher number of lymph nodes resected in open surgery group (p=0.741) was described. The leakage rate was slightly higher in the MIS group (p=0.358) with 10.5%, while the postoperative hospital stay was longer in the open surgery group after matching (p=0.001; OR 95% 5.2 CI: 1.8-15.6). The estimated recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) at 3 years in open surgery and MIS was 71.8% (95% CI; 0.58-0.89) and 70% (95% CI; 0.56-0.88) (p=0.431) and 77.7% (95% CI; 0.64-0.94) and 88.9% (95% CI; 0.79-0.99) (p=0.5), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Shorter postoperative hospital stay in the minimally invasive surgery group was reported. RFS, OS, and recurrence rates were similar between both groups. This approach is for non-metastatic rectal cancer in referral centers in Peru.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在描述和比较秘鲁的微创外科(MIS)和开放手术治疗直肠癌。

材料和方法

对 2016 年 1 月至 2020 年 12 月期间在秘鲁国家肿瘤研究所接受非转移性直肠癌保肛手术的所有患者进行回顾性单中心分析。比较两组之间的临床、围手术期、病理和生存结果。采用倾向评分匹配法以最小化偏倚。

结果

最终分析纳入 162 例患者。其中 124 例接受开放手术,38 例接受 MIS。匹配后两组患者、临床肿瘤、病理特征和围手术期均相似。MIS 组的环周切缘(CRM)相似且直肠系膜质量较高(p=1.000),但开放手术组的淋巴结清扫数量更多(p=0.741)。MIS 组的漏诊率略高(p=0.358)为 10.5%,但匹配后开放手术组的术后住院时间更长(p=0.001;OR 95%CI:1.8-15.6)。开放手术和 MIS 组的 3 年无复发生存率(RFS)和总生存率(OS)分别为 71.8%(95%CI:0.58-0.89)和 70%(95%CI:0.56-0.88)(p=0.431)和 77.7%(95%CI:0.64-0.94)和 88.9%(95%CI:0.79-0.99)(p=0.5)。

结论

报告了微创外科组术后住院时间更短。两组的 RFS、OS 和复发率相似。这种方法适用于秘鲁转诊中心的非转移性直肠癌。

相似文献

1
Open versus minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study in Peru.秘鲁单中心回顾性队列研究:直肠癌保肛括约肌微创手术与开放手术的比较。
Rev Gastroenterol Peru. 2022 Jan-Mar;42(1):33-40.
2
Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive and open radical resection for rectal cancer: comparison of short-term outcomes in elderly/frail patients.微创与开放根治性切除术治疗直肠癌的倾向性匹配分析:老年/虚弱患者短期结局比较。
J Robot Surg. 2024 Mar 11;18(1):117. doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-01883-0.
3
Open versus minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center cohort study on 237 consecutive patients.开腹与微创直肠肿瘤切除术治疗直肠肿瘤的单中心队列研究:连续 237 例患者分析。
Updates Surg. 2019 Sep;71(3):493-504. doi: 10.1007/s13304-019-00642-3. Epub 2019 Mar 13.
4
Minimally invasive versus open multivisceral resection for rectal cancer clinically invading adjacent organs: a propensity score-matched analysis.微创与开放联合脏器切除术治疗侵犯相邻器官的直肠癌:倾向评分匹配分析。
Surg Endosc. 2024 Jun;38(6):3263-3272. doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-10844-5. Epub 2024 Apr 24.
5
Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of Bi-National Colorectal Cancer Audit Data.微创与开放直肠切除术治疗直肠癌的结果:基于两国结直肠癌症审核数据的倾向评分匹配分析。
Dis Colon Rectum. 2020 Jun;63(6):778-787. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001654.
6
Superior pathologic and clinical outcomes after minimally invasive rectal cancer resection, compared to open resection.微创直肠癌切除术相较于开放性切除术具有更好的病理和临床结果。
Surg Endosc. 2020 Aug;34(8):3435-3448. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07120-2. Epub 2019 Dec 16.
7
Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resection for sphincter-saving surgery: pathological and short-term outcomes in a single-center analysis of 130 consecutive patients.机器人与腹腔镜直肠切除术用于保留肛门手术:单中心 130 例连续患者的病理和短期结果分析。
Surg Endosc. 2017 Oct;31(10):4085-4091. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5455-7. Epub 2017 Mar 7.
8
Minimally invasive versus open pelvic exenterations for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of perioperative and 3-year oncological outcomes.微创与开放盆腔廓清术治疗直肠癌:围手术期和 3 年肿瘤学结局的比较分析。
BJS Open. 2021 Sep 6;5(5). doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrab074.
9
Short-term results in a population based study indicate advantage for minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery versus open.基于人群的研究的短期结果表明,微创直肠癌手术优于开放性手术。
BMC Surg. 2024 Feb 10;24(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s12893-024-02336-z.
10
Minimally invasive surgery and sphincter preservation in rectal cancer.直肠癌的微创手术与括约肌保留
J Surg Res. 2016 May 15;202(2):299-307. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2016.01.010. Epub 2016 Jan 14.

引用本文的文献

1
Risk factors of anastomotic leak in colorectal cancer: a multicentric study in a Latin American country.结直肠癌吻合口漏的危险因素:拉丁美洲某国的一项多中心研究
Ecancermedicalscience. 2024 Apr 16;18:1696. doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2024.1696. eCollection 2024.