AIM： To report our experience using mini-laparotomy for the resection of rectal cancer using the total meso- rectal excision （TME） technique, METHODS： Consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent anal-col...AIM： To report our experience using mini-laparotomy for the resection of rectal cancer using the total meso- rectal excision （TME） technique, METHODS： Consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent anal-colorectal surgery at the authors＇ hospital between March 2001 and June 2009 were included, In total, 1415 patients were included in the study, The cases were divided into two surgical proce- dure groups （traditional open laparotomy or mini-lap- arotomy）, The mini-laparotomy group was defined as having an incision length ≤ 12 cm. Every patient un- derwent the TME technique with a standard operation performed by the same clinical team. The multimodal preoperative evaluation system and postoperative fast track were used. To assess the short-term outcomes, data on the postoperative complications and recovery functions of these cases were collected and analysed. The study included a plan for patient follow-up, to ob- tain the long-term outcomes related to 5-year survival and local recurrence. RESULTS： The mini-laparotomy group had 410 pati- ents, and 1015 cases underwent traditional laparoto- my. There were no differences in baseline characteris- tics between the two surgical procedure groups. The overall 5-year survival rate was not different between the rnini-laparotorny and traditional laparotorny groups （80.6% vs 79.4%, P = 0.333）, nor was the 5-year local recurrence （1.4% vs 1.5%, P = 0.544）. However, 1-year mortality was decreased in the rnini-laparotorny group compared with the traditional laparotorny group （0% vs 4.2%, P 〈 0.0001）. Overall 1-year survival rates were 100% for Stage Ⅰ, 98.4% for Stage Ⅱ, 97.1% for Stage Ⅲ, and 86.6% for Stage Ⅳ. Local recurrence did not differ between the surgical groups at 1 or 5 years. Local recurrence at 1 year was 0.5% （2 cases） for mini-laparotorny and 0.5% （5 cases） for traditional laparotorny （P = 0.670）. Local recurrence at 5 years was 1.5% （6 cases） for mini-laparotorny and 1.4% （14 cases） for traditional laparotorny （P = 0.544）. Days to first ambulation （3.2 ± 0.8 d vs 3.9 ± 2.3 d, P = 0.000） and passing of gas （3.5 ± 1.1 d vs 4.3 ± 1.8 d, P = 0.000）, length of hospital stay （6.4 ± 1.5 d vs 9.7 ± 2.2 d, P = 0.000）, anastomotic leakage （0.5% vs 4.8%, P = 0.000）, and intestinal obstruction （2.2% vs 7.3%, P = 0.000） were decreased in the rrnini-laparotorny group compared with the traditional laparotorny group. The results for other postoperative recovery function indi- cators, such as days to oral feeding and defecation, were similar, as were the results for immediate post- operative complications, including the physiologic and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortal- ity and morbidity score. CONCLUSION： Mini-laparotomy, as conducted in a sin- gle-centre series with experienced TME surgeons, is a safe and effective new approach for minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery. Further evaluation is required to evaluate the use of this approach in a larger patient sample and by other surgical teams.展开更多
文摘AIM： To report our experience using mini-laparotomy for the resection of rectal cancer using the total meso- rectal excision （TME） technique, METHODS： Consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent anal-colorectal surgery at the authors＇ hospital between March 2001 and June 2009 were included, In total, 1415 patients were included in the study, The cases were divided into two surgical proce- dure groups （traditional open laparotomy or mini-lap- arotomy）, The mini-laparotomy group was defined as having an incision length ≤ 12 cm. Every patient un- derwent the TME technique with a standard operation performed by the same clinical team. The multimodal preoperative evaluation system and postoperative fast track were used. To assess the short-term outcomes, data on the postoperative complications and recovery functions of these cases were collected and analysed. The study included a plan for patient follow-up, to ob- tain the long-term outcomes related to 5-year survival and local recurrence. RESULTS： The mini-laparotomy group had 410 pati- ents, and 1015 cases underwent traditional laparoto- my. There were no differences in baseline characteris- tics between the two surgical procedure groups. The overall 5-year survival rate was not different between the rnini-laparotorny and traditional laparotorny groups （80.6% vs 79.4%, P = 0.333）, nor was the 5-year local recurrence （1.4% vs 1.5%, P = 0.544）. However, 1-year mortality was decreased in the rnini-laparotorny group compared with the traditional laparotorny group （0% vs 4.2%, P 〈 0.0001）. Overall 1-year survival rates were 100% for Stage Ⅰ, 98.4% for Stage Ⅱ, 97.1% for Stage Ⅲ, and 86.6% for Stage Ⅳ. Local recurrence did not differ between the surgical groups at 1 or 5 years. Local recurrence at 1 year was 0.5% （2 cases） for mini-laparotorny and 0.5% （5 cases） for traditional laparotorny （P = 0.670）. Local recurrence at 5 years was 1.5% （6 cases） for mini-laparotorny and 1.4% （14 cases） for traditional laparotorny （P = 0.544）. Days to first ambulation （3.2 ± 0.8 d vs 3.9 ± 2.3 d, P = 0.000） and passing of gas （3.5 ± 1.1 d vs 4.3 ± 1.8 d, P = 0.000）, length of hospital stay （6.4 ± 1.5 d vs 9.7 ± 2.2 d, P = 0.000）, anastomotic leakage （0.5% vs 4.8%, P = 0.000）, and intestinal obstruction （2.2% vs 7.3%, P = 0.000） were decreased in the rrnini-laparotorny group compared with the traditional laparotorny group. The results for other postoperative recovery function indi- cators, such as days to oral feeding and defecation, were similar, as were the results for immediate post- operative complications, including the physiologic and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortal- ity and morbidity score. CONCLUSION： Mini-laparotomy, as conducted in a sin- gle-centre series with experienced TME surgeons, is a safe and effective new approach for minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery. Further evaluation is required to evaluate the use of this approach in a larger patient sample and by other surgical teams.
