Evaluation of bacterial contamination and medium-term oncological outcomes of intracorporeal anastomosis for colon cancer:A propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND Although intracorporeal anastomosis(IA)for colon cancer requires longer operative time than extracorporeal anastomosis(EA),its short-term postoperative results,such as early recovery of bowel movement,have been reported to be equal or better.As IA requires opening the intestinal tract in the abdominal cavity under pneumoperitoneum,there are concerns about intraperitoneal bacterial infection and recurrence of peritoneal dissemination due to the spread of bacteria and tumor cells.However,intraperitoneal bacterial contamination and medium-term oncological outcomes have not been clarified.abdominal cavity in IA.METHODS Of 127 patients who underwent laparoscopic colon resection for colon cancer from April 2015 to December 2020,75 underwent EA(EA group),and 52 underwent IA(IA group).After propensity score matching,the primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival rates,and secondary endpoints were 3-year overall survival rates,type of recurrence,surgical site infection(SSI)incidence,number of days on antibiotics,and postoperative biological responses.RESULTS Three-year disease-free survival rates did not significantly differ between the IA and EA groups(87.2%and 82.7%,respectively,P=0.4473).The 3-year overall survival rates also did not significantly differ between the IA and EA groups(94.7%and 94.7%,respectively;P=0.9891).There was no difference in the type of recurrence between the two groups.In addition,there were no significant differences in SSI incidence or the number of days on antibiotics;however,postoperative biological responses,such as the white blood cell count(10200 vs 8650/mm^(3),P=0.0068),C-reactive protein(6.8 vs 4.5 mg/dL,P=0.0011),and body temperature(37.7 vs 37.5℃,P=0.0079),were significantly higher in the IA group.CONCLUSION IA is an anastomotic technique that should be widely performed because its risk of intraperitoneal bacterial contamination and medium-term oncological outcomes are comparable to those of EA.

Peroral traction-assisted natural orifice trans-anal flexible endoscopic rectosigmoidectomy followed by intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis in a live porcine model

BACKGROUND Compared to traditional open surgery,laparoscopic surgery has become a standard approach for colorectal cancer due to its great superiorities including less postoperative pain,a shorter hospital stay,and better quality of life.In 2007,Whiteford et al reported the first natural orifice trans-anal endoscopic surgery(NOTES)sigmoidectomy using transanal endoscopic microsurgery.To date,all cases of NOTES colorectal resection have included a hybrid laparoscopic approach with the use of established rigid platforms.AIM To introduce a novel technique of peroral external traction-assisted transanal NOTES rectosigmoidectomy followed by intracorporeal colorectal end-to-end anastomosis by using only currently available and flexible endoscopic instrumentation in a live porcine model.METHODS Three female pigs weighing 25-30 kg underwent NOTES rectosigmoid resection.After preoperative work-up and bowel preparation,general anesthesia combined with endotracheal intubation was achieved.One dual-channel therapeutic endoscope was used.Carbon dioxide insufflation was performed during the operation.The procedure of trans-anal NOTES rectosigmoidectomy included the following eight steps:(1)The rectosigmoid colon was tattooed with India ink by submucosal injection;(2)Creation of gastrostomy by directed submucosal tunneling;(3)Peroral external traction using endoloop ligation;(4)Creation of rectostomy on the anterior rectal wall by directed 3 cm submucosal tunneling;(5)Peroral external traction-assisted dissection of the left side of the colon;(6)Transanal rectosigmoid specimen transection,where an anvil was inserted into the proximal segment after purse-string suturing;(7)Intracorporeal colorectal end-toend anastomosis using a circular stapler by a single stapling technique;and(8)Closure of gastrostomy using endoscopic clips.All animals were euthanized immediately after the procedure,abdominal exploration was performed,and the air-under-water leak test was carried out.RESULTS The procedure was completed in all three animals,with the operation time ranging from 193 min to 259 min.Neither major intraoperative complications nor hemodynamic instability occurred during the operation.The length of the resected specimen ranged from 7 cm to 13 cm.With the assistance of a transumbilical rigid grasper,intracorporeal colorectal,tension-free,end-to-end anastomosis was achieved in the three animals.CONCLUSION Peroral traction-assisted transanal NOTES rectosigmoidectomy followed by intracorporeal colorectal end-to-end anastomosis is technically feasible and reproducible in an animal model and is worthy of further improvements.

A comparative study of totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients: Short-term operative outcomes at a high-volume center

Objective： Laparoscopic gastrectomy has been established as a standard treatment for early gastric cancer, and its use is increasing recently. Compared with the conventional laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy （LADG）, totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy （TLDG） involves intracorporeal reconstruction, which can avoid the additional incision, resulting in pain reduction and early recovery. This study aimed to compare the short-term postoperative outcomes of TLDG vs. LADG in gastric cancer in a high-volume center.Methods： A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 1,322 patients who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy from June 2012 to June 2017 at the National Cancer Center, Korea. LAD G was performed in the early period before July 2015, and TLDG was applied in the later period. Postoperative short-term outcomes were compared in terms of complication and clinical course between the two groups. Pain score was measured by rating the pain intensity from 0 to 10 points on postoperative day （POD） 1 and 3. Results： A total of 667 patients underwent LADG and 655 patients underwent TLDG. Clinieopathologic characteristics were not different in both groups. Intraoperative estimated blood loss （EBL） was significantly lower in the TLDG group （P〈0.001）. Postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the TLDG group than in the LADG group on POD 1 （5.1±1.5 vs. 4.8±1.4, P=0.015）. First flatus passage after operation was significantly earlier in the TLDG group （3.4±0.8 d vs. 3.2±0.6 d, P〈0.001）. There were no differences in postoperative complications and hospital stay between the two groups. Conclusions： Based on the reported short-term postoperative outcomes, TLDG is safe and feasible as well as LADG. Moreover, compared with LADG, TLDG can reduce intraoperative EBL and postoperative pain and enhance the bowel motility in gastric cancer surgery.