Laparoscopic natural orifice specimen extraction colectomy versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal resection in patients with rectal endometriosis: a randomized, controlled trial

被引:2
|
作者
Dobo, Noemi [1 ]
Marki, Gabriella [2 ]
Hudelist, Gernot [3 ]
Csibi, Noemi [1 ]
Brubel, Reka [1 ]
Acs, Nandor [1 ]
Bokor, Attila [1 ]
机构
[1] Semmelweis Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, 1088 Baross St 27, Budapest, Hungary
[2] MedEnd Inst, Budapest, Hungary
[3] Hosp St John God, Rudolfinerhaus Private Clin & Campus, Ctr Endometriosis, Dept Gynecol, Vienna, Austria
关键词
colorectal endometriosis; endometriosis health profile 30; gastrointestinal quality of life index; low anterior resection syndrome; natural orifice specimen extraction; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; DEEP ENDOMETRIOSIS; RECTOSIGMOID RESECTION; BOWEL RESECTION; CLASSIFICATION; VALIDATION; INDEX; EXCISION; SURGERY; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1097/JS9.0000000000000728
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The conventional laparoscopic approach for the surgical management of deep endometriosis (DE) infiltrating the rectum appears to ensure improved digestive functional outcomes. The natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) technique for the treatment of colorectal DE can significantly accelerate postoperative recovery; however, data on gastrointestinal function following conventional laparoscopic segmental bowel resection (CLR) compared with NOSE colectomy (NC) for DE are sparse. Materials and methods: Between 30 September 2019 and 31 December 2020, a randomized, open-label, two-arm, parallel-group controlled trial with women aged 18-45 years was conducted at University Hospital. Ninety-nine patients were randomized to CLR or NC, with DE infiltrating at least the muscular layer, at least 50% of the circumference of the bowel, up to 15 cm from the anal verge, exhibiting pain and bowel symptoms and/or infertility. The primary endpoint was bowel function, represented by low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Secondary parameters included the Endometriosis Health Profile 30 (EHP30), Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores preoperatively and at set times (1 and 6 months, 1 year) following surgery. Results: No significant differences were observed in the postoperative LARS scores, VAS, EHP30, and GIQLI between the NC and CLR groups. LARS scores did not reveal significant differences 12 months postoperatively compared to the preoperative values in both groups (CLR group P = 0.93 versus NC group, P = 0.87). GIQLI scores were significantly improved 12 months after the operation compared with baseline values in the CLR group (P = 0.002) and NC group (P= 0.001). Pain symptoms and quality of life scores significantly improved 12 months postoperatively in both groups. Conclusions: NC is a feasible surgical approach for treating patients with rectal DE. Our study did not show a statistically significant difference between CLR and NC techniques in mid-term digestive and pain outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:4018 / 4026
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic colectomy with or without natural-orifice specimen extraction
    Wolthuis, A. M.
    Fieuws, S.
    Van den Bosch, A.
    van Overstraeten, A. de Buck
    D'Hoore, A.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2015, 102 (06) : 630 - 637
  • [2] Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction during Laparoscopic Bowel Resection for Colorectal Endometriosis: Technique and Outcome
    Bokor, Attila
    Lukovich, Peter
    Csibi, Noemi
    D'Hooghe, Thomas
    Lebovic, Dan
    Brubel, Reka
    Rigo, Janos
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2018, 25 (06) : 1065 - 1074
  • [3] Laparoscopic resection with natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopy for colorectal disease: a meta-analysis
    Ma, Bin
    Huang, Xuan-zhang
    Gao, Peng
    Zhao, Jun-hua
    Song, Yong-xi
    Sun, Jing-xu
    Chen, Xiao-wan
    Wang, Zhen-ning
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2015, 30 (11) : 1479 - 1488
  • [4] Laparoscopic resection with natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopy for colorectal disease: a meta-analysis
    Bin Ma
    Xuan-zhang Huang
    Peng Gao
    Jun-hua Zhao
    Yong-xi Song
    Jing-xu Sun
    Xiao-wan Chen
    Zhen-ning Wang
    [J]. International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 2015, 30 : 1479 - 1488
  • [5] Laparoscopic Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery versus Conventional Surgery in Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Zhou, Zhuqing
    Chen, Lin
    Liu, Jie
    Ji, Fang
    Shang, Yuanyuan
    Yang, Xudong
    Yang, Yao
    Fu, Chuangang
    [J]. GASTROENTEROLOGY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 2022, 2022
  • [6] Transanal natural orifice specimen extraction for laparoscopic anterior resection in rectal cancer
    Fang-Hai Han
    Li-Xin Hua
    Zhi Zhao
    Jian-Hai Wu
    Wen-Hua Zhan
    [J]. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 2013, (43) : 7751 - 7757
  • [7] Transanal natural orifice specimen extraction for laparoscopic anterior resection in rectal cancer
    Han, Fang-Hai
    Hua, Li-Xin
    Zhao, Zhi
    Wu, Jian-Hai
    Zhan, Wen-Hua
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2013, 19 (43) : 7751 - 7757
  • [8] Colorectal resection via natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic extraction: a meta-analysis with meta-regression
    Y. H. Chin
    G. M. Decruz
    C. H. Ng
    H. Q. M. Tan
    F. Lim
    F. J. Foo
    C. H. Tai
    C. S. Chong
    [J]. Techniques in Coloproctology, 2021, 25 : 35 - 48
  • [9] Colorectal resection via natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic extraction: a meta-analysis with meta-regression
    Chin, Y. H.
    Decruz, G. M.
    Ng, C. H.
    Tan, H. Q. M.
    Lim, F.
    Foo, F. J.
    Tai, C. H.
    Chong, C. S.
    [J]. TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2021, 25 (01) : 35 - 48
  • [10] A Comparison of Natural Orifice Versus Transabdominal Specimen Extraction Following Laparoscopic Total Colectomy
    Gundogan, Ersin
    Kayaalp, Cuneyt
    Gunes, Orgun
    Uylas, Ufuk
    Sumer, Fatih
    [J]. JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2019, 29 (04): : 471 - 475