Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020
Effects of needlescopic surgery on postoperative pain in intersphincteric or abdominoperineal resection.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fukuoka Hironori, Fukunaga Yosuke, Nagata Jun, Nagasaki Toshiya, Akiyoshi Takashi, Konishi Tsuyoshi, Nagayama Satoshi, Ueno Masashi
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Laparoscopic surgery allows minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer, and needlescopic surgery (NS) offers even more minimally invasive operations beyond the scope of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CS). The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes of NS for intersphincteric resection (ISR) or abdominoperineal resection (APR) to treat anal or rectal cancer without an abdominal incision for specimen extraction and to measure abdominal wound pain compared to CS.
METHODS: Between September 2014 and December 2016, a total of 134 patients underwent laparoscopic ISR or APR. Of these, 26 patients underwent NS, and 108 patients underwent CS. Postoperative abdominal wound pain was estimated using the numerical rating scale. Short-term outcomes were compared between NS and CS.
RESULTS: No conversion to CS or open surgery was required. Median operation time was significantly shorter with NS (295 min) than with CS (331.5 min; p = 0.020). Median estimated blood loss was significantly lower with NS (30 ml) than with CS (50 ml; p = 0.011). Postoperative pain score on postoperative day (POD)5 was significantly lower with NS than with CS (p = 0.025), and frequencies of analgesic use were significantly lower with NS than with CS on POD0, POD2, and POD3 (p = 0.032, p = 0.017, p = 0.045, respectively). The postoperative complications occurred at similar frequencies between groups (p = 0.655).
CONCLUSION: NS for ISR or APR offers comparable short-term outcomes to CS, with better pain outcomes.
METHODS: Between September 2014 and December 2016, a total of 134 patients underwent laparoscopic ISR or APR. Of these, 26 patients underwent NS, and 108 patients underwent CS. Postoperative abdominal wound pain was estimated using the numerical rating scale. Short-term outcomes were compared between NS and CS.
RESULTS: No conversion to CS or open surgery was required. Median operation time was significantly shorter with NS (295 min) than with CS (331.5 min; p = 0.020). Median estimated blood loss was significantly lower with NS (30 ml) than with CS (50 ml; p = 0.011). Postoperative pain score on postoperative day (POD)5 was significantly lower with NS than with CS (p = 0.025), and frequencies of analgesic use were significantly lower with NS than with CS on POD0, POD2, and POD3 (p = 0.032, p = 0.017, p = 0.045, respectively). The postoperative complications occurred at similar frequencies between groups (p = 0.655).
CONCLUSION: NS for ISR or APR offers comparable short-term outcomes to CS, with better pain outcomes.