Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 23, 2025
Clinical Application of Single-Surgeon, Three-Port, Laparoscopic Resection for Colorectal Cancer with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction
Published on: March 24, 2023
Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus robotic transabdominal specimen extraction surgery for
Dongning Liu1, Guodong He2, Hongliang Yao3
1Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Background:
Despite the global increase in the adoption of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (R-NOSES), its advantages over robotic transabdominal specimen extraction surgery (R-TSES) for treating early-stage rectal cancer remain debated. There is scant nationwide, multicenter studies comparing the surgical quality and short-term outcomes between R-NOSES and R-TSES for this condition.
Objective:
This retrospective cohort study was conducted nationally across multiple centers to compare the surgical quality and short-term outcomes between R-NOSES and R-TSES in early-stage rectal cancer.
Design:
Multicenter retrospective cohort trial.
Setting:
Eight experienced surgeons from 8 high-volume Chinese colorectal cancer treatment centers.
Patients:
The study included 1086 patients who underwent R-NOSES or R-TSES from October 2015 to November 2023 at the 8 centers. Inclusion criteria were: (1) histologically confirmed rectal adenocarcinoma; (2) robotic total mesorectal excision; (3) postoperative pathological staging of TisN0M0 or T1-2N0M0; (4) availability of complete surgical and postoperative follow-up data. Patients were matched 1:1 in the R-NOSES and R-TSES groups using the propensity score matching (PSM) technique.
Results:
After PSM, 318 matched pairs with well-balanced patient characteristics were identified. The operation time for the R-NOSES group was significantly longer than that for the R-TSES group [140 min (125-170 min) vs. 140 min (120-160 min), P = 0.032]. Conversely, the times to first flatus and initial oral intake in the R-NOSES group were significantly shorter than those in the R-TSES group [48 h (41-56 h) vs. 48 h (44-62 h), P = 0.049 and 77 h (72-94 h) vs. 82 h (72-96 h), P = 0.008], respectively. Additionally, the length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the R-NOSES group compared with the R-TSES group [7 day (7-9 day) vs. 8 day (7-9 day), P = 0.005]. The overall postoperative complication rates were similar between the groups (10.7% in the R-NOSES group vs. 11.9% in the R-TSES group, P = 0.617). However, the R-NOSES group had a lower incidence of wound complications compared to the R-TSES group (0.0% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.015). Regarding surgical stress response, the R-NOSES group showed superior outcomes. Additionally, patients in the R-NOSES group required fewer additional analgesics on postoperative days 1, 3, and 5 and reported lower pain scores compared to the R-TSES group. The body image scale (BIS) and cosmetic scale (CS) scores were also significantly higher in the R-NOSES group. Furthermore, the R-NOSES group demonstrated significantly better outcomes in functional dimensions such as physical, role, emotional, social, and cognitive functioning, and in symptoms like fatigue and pain, when compared to the R-TSES group.
Limitations:
It is imperative to ensure the safe and standardized implementation of R-NOSES through the establishment of a uniform training protocol.
Conclusions:
These results affirm that R-NOSES is a safe and effective treatment for early-stage rectal cancer when meticulously executed by skilled surgeons.
