Surgery today · 2024
Efficacy and long-term outcomes of abdominoperineal resection using transperineal total mesorectal excision approach for rectal cancer.
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.
Matsuda Takeru, Yamashita Kimihiro, Hasegawa Hiroshi, Sawada Ryuichiro, Koterazawa Yasufumi, Harada Hitoshi, Urakawa Naoki, Goto Hironobu, Kanaji Shingo, Kakeji Yoshihiro
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Although abdominoperineal resection (APR) is essential for a certain population of patients with low rectal cancer, it is technically difficult and sometimes contains oncological disadvantages. Thus, the use of the transperineal total mesorectal excision (TpTME) approach might overcome such concerns regarding APR.
METHODS: In total, 27 patients who underwent conventional APR (conventional group) and 49 patients who underwent APR using the TpTME approach (TpTME group) for low rectal cancer were included. After propensity score matching, the outcomes of the 25 matched cases were compared between groups.
RESULTS: The operative time was significantly shorter in the TpTME group than in the conventional group (452 vs. 565 min, P = 0.039). Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion rates were also significantly lower in the TpTME group than in the conventional group (25 mL vs. 200 mL, P < 0.001 and 0% vs. 28.0%, P = 0.015, respectively). Although the incidence of postoperative complications did not differ significantly, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the TpTME group than in the conventional group (24 vs. 36 days, P = 0.001). The 5 year relapse-free survival rates in the TpTME and conventional groups were 62.0% and 57.6%, respectively (P = 0.648).
CONCLUSION: APR using the TpTME approach for the treatment of low rectal cancer is feasible and can achieve favorable oncological outcomes.
METHODS: In total, 27 patients who underwent conventional APR (conventional group) and 49 patients who underwent APR using the TpTME approach (TpTME group) for low rectal cancer were included. After propensity score matching, the outcomes of the 25 matched cases were compared between groups.
RESULTS: The operative time was significantly shorter in the TpTME group than in the conventional group (452 vs. 565 min, P = 0.039). Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion rates were also significantly lower in the TpTME group than in the conventional group (25 mL vs. 200 mL, P < 0.001 and 0% vs. 28.0%, P = 0.015, respectively). Although the incidence of postoperative complications did not differ significantly, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the TpTME group than in the conventional group (24 vs. 36 days, P = 0.001). The 5 year relapse-free survival rates in the TpTME and conventional groups were 62.0% and 57.6%, respectively (P = 0.648).
CONCLUSION: APR using the TpTME approach for the treatment of low rectal cancer is feasible and can achieve favorable oncological outcomes.