Anticancer research · 2025
Laparoscopy-assisted Partial Cecum Resection Versus Ileocecal Resection for Non-malignant Appendiceal Neoplasms.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Abe Kentaro, Nozawa Hiroaki, Sasaki Kazuhito, Murono Koji, Emoto Shigenobu, Yokoyama Yuichiro, Nagai Yuzo, Shinagawa Takahide, Tachikawa Yuichi, Okada Satoshi, Ushiku Tetsuo, Ishihara Soichiro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIM: Preoperative pathological diagnosis of appendiceal tumors is difficult due to their anatomical nature. Although lymph node metastasis is rare in low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms (LAMN), there is a risk of a positive surgical margin by appendectomy. Partial cecum resection is considered an option to obtain negative resection margins for LAMN; however, the benefits of this procedure via a laparoscopic approach remain unclear.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent laparoscopy-assisted partial cecum resection (Lap-Ce) or ileocecum resection (Lap-ICR) for primary appendiceal tumors at our department. An intraoperative pathological diagnosis was requested at the surgeon's discretion. Clinicopathological factors and surgical outcomes were compared among the two groups.
RESULTS: Intraoperative pathological consultations were conducted for 86% (12 of 14 patients) of the Lap-Ce group and 4% (1 of 27 patients) of the Lap-ICR group. Fewer trocars (median: 3) were used in the Lap-Ce group than in the Lap-ICR group (5 trocars in all patients, p<0.0001). The Lap-Ce group had a shorter operative time (median: 113 vs. 197 min, p<0.0001), less blood loss (median: 1 vs. 32 ml, p<0.0001), and a shorter time to the first bowel movement than the Lap-ICR group (2 vs. 3 days, p=0.049). There was no recurrence in either group.
CONCLUSION: Lap-Ce was less invasive than Lap-ICR as assessed by perioperative variables. Therefore, Lap-Ce is considered to be useful as a primary surgical procedure for clinically benign lesions.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent laparoscopy-assisted partial cecum resection (Lap-Ce) or ileocecum resection (Lap-ICR) for primary appendiceal tumors at our department. An intraoperative pathological diagnosis was requested at the surgeon's discretion. Clinicopathological factors and surgical outcomes were compared among the two groups.
RESULTS: Intraoperative pathological consultations were conducted for 86% (12 of 14 patients) of the Lap-Ce group and 4% (1 of 27 patients) of the Lap-ICR group. Fewer trocars (median: 3) were used in the Lap-Ce group than in the Lap-ICR group (5 trocars in all patients, p<0.0001). The Lap-Ce group had a shorter operative time (median: 113 vs. 197 min, p<0.0001), less blood loss (median: 1 vs. 32 ml, p<0.0001), and a shorter time to the first bowel movement than the Lap-ICR group (2 vs. 3 days, p=0.049). There was no recurrence in either group.
CONCLUSION: Lap-Ce was less invasive than Lap-ICR as assessed by perioperative variables. Therefore, Lap-Ce is considered to be useful as a primary surgical procedure for clinically benign lesions.