Short-term clinical effects and inflammatory response of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery for the treatment of sigmoid and rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND

The clinical outcomes and benefits of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) in colorectal cancer have not been fully evaluated comparing to conventional laparoscopic-assisted radical resection. This retrospective study was conducted to investigate the short-term clinical benefits of NOSES versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery for the treatment of sigmoid and rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 112 patients with sigmoid or rectal cancer were included in this retrospective study. The observation group (n=60) was treated with NOSES, and the control group (n=52) was treated with conventional laparoscopic-assisted radical resection. Following these interventions, the postoperative recovery and inflammatory response indexes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In contrast with the control group, the observation group significantly had longer operation time (t=2.83, P=0.006), but shorter durations for the resumption of a semi-liquid diet (t=2.17, P=0.032), and length of postoperative hospital stay (t=2.74, P=0.007), as well as fewer postoperative incision infections (χ=7.32, P=0.009). Moreover, the levels of immunoglobulin (Ig), including IgG (t=2.29, P=0.024), IgA (t=3.30, P=0.001), and IgM (t=3.38, P=0.001), in the observation group were markedly higher than those within the control group at 3 days postoperatively. Also, the levels of inflammatory indicators including interleukin (IL)-6 (t=4.22, P=5.02E-5), C-reactive protein (CRP) (t=3.73, P=3.5E-4), and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α (t=2.94, P=0.004) in the observation group were considerably lower than those in the control group at 3 days after the operation.

CONCLUSIONS

NOSES can improve the postoperative recovery and has benefits in reducing the inflammatory response than conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery.