Comparative analysis of laparoscopic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and traditional laparoscopic low rectal anterior resection

Abstract

Objective To compare the clinical outcome of laparoscopic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and traditional laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection, and to explored its safety and efficacy for rectal cancer. Methods From June 2016 to December 2017, clinical data of 81 patients with rectal cancers were analyzed retrospectively. According to the surgical methods, 49 cases were divided into the traditional group who underwent traditional laparoscopic low rectal anterior resection, and 32 cases were divided into NOSES group. Statistical software SPSS20.0 were used for data analysis. Measurement data such as perioperative indicators and oxidative stress indicators were represented by mean standard deviation, and independent t test was performed. Chi-square test was performed for complications. Kaplan-meier method was used for postoperative survival analysis, and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results The first ambulation time in NOSES group were significantly less than that in traditional group (P 0.05). The levels of MDA increase and SOD decrease 3 days after surgery in NOSES group were significantly lower than those in traditional group (P 0.05). One week after operation, the scores of self-care ability in the two groups were significantly improved, and the scores in the NOSES group were higher than those in the traditional group, with statistically significant difference (P 0.05). Conclusion NOSES is safe, feasible, effective, rapid recovery mini-invasive, with a better prognosis than traditional laparoscopic anterior rectal resection, which is worth of popularizing. Key words: Rectal neoplasms; Laparoscopes; NOSES; Comparative effectiveness research; Safety