[Comparison of short-term outcomes of transrectal specimen extraction during laparoscopic sigmoid radical resection...

To compare the short-term outcomes between transrectal specimen extraction during laparoscopic sigmoid radical resection and conventional laparoscopy-assisted sigmoid radical resection.

Sixteen patients(transrectal specimen extraction group,4 females and 12 males), who were planned to undergo laparoscopically assisted sigmoid radical resection with BMI<28 kg/m² and were evaluated as T1-T3 tumor by iconography without distant metastasis, were selected to undergo transrectal specimen extraction during laparoscopic sigmoid radical resection from December 2015 to April 2016 in the Department of Anorectal Surgery of Changhai Hospital. The procedure of specimen extraction was as follows: Perineal anal expansion was performed. The rectum was cut in rectal distal ligature within the abdominal cavity. Telescope cover was placed through Trocar hole in right low abdomen and rectal stump was pulled out of the body through the anus to form an access tunnel. Planned resected bowel was placed in the tunnel and the specimen was dissociated and removed completely from anus. Each patient in transrectal specimen extraction group was individually matched with two patients who underwent laparoscopically assisted sigmoid radical resection by gender, age, BMI and date of surgery. The perioperative outcomes and pathological evaluation of surgical specimen of two groups were retrospectively collected and compared.

The differences of baseline data (gender, age, BMI, distance from tumor to anal verge measured by colonoscopy and clinical tumor category) between two groups were not significant (all P>0.05). Compared to laparoscopy-assisted group, transrectal specimen extraction group presented longer operation time [(140.6±8.3) minutes vs. (122.2±26.2) minutes, t=-3.629, P=0.001], and more blood loss[(43.8±9.2) ml vs. (35.3±10.2) ml, t=-2.795, P=0.008], but shorter time to first flatus [(43.1±8.3) hours vs. (52.0±11.4) hours, t=2.756, P=0.008] and lower pain score at operative day and the first postoperative day (3.8±0.8 vs. 4.8±1.1, t=3.558, P=0.001; 2.6±0.6 vs. 3.8±0.8, t=5.165, P=0.000). The case ratio of additional analgesia [6.3%(1/16) ns. 18.8%(6/32)], postoperative hospital stay [(6.8±3.4) days vs. (5.6±0.8) days] and postoperative morbidity of complication [12.5%(2/16) vs. 9.4%(3/32)] were not significantly different between the two groups (all P>0.05). Within postoperative 30-day follow-up, transrectal specimen extraction group had ileus in one patient and anastomotic leakage in one patient, and laparoscopy-assisted group had fat necrosis of assisted incision in two patients and gastric retention in one patient. There were also no significant differences in specimen length[(18.2±4.8) cm vs. (19.8±5.7) cm, P>0.05], tumor size [(4.0±1.2) cm vs. (4.4±1.5) cm, P>0.05] and number of harvested lymph node (14.6±2.6 vs. 16.0±3.0, P>0.05] between two groups. During follow-up of 7-10(mean 9) months of transrectal specimen extraction group and 2-16 (mean 7) months of laparoscopically assisted group, no tumor local relapse and distant metastasis were found in the both groups.

As compared to laparoscopy-assisted sigmoid radical resection, transrectal specimen extraction laparoscopic sigmoid radical resection has better short-term efficacy, meanwhile they have comparable oncologic clearance.