4.5 Article

Feasibility of Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision with Extended Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Advanced Lower Rectal Cancer after Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 868-875

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-016-3762-0

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The feasibility of additional lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) compared with total mesorectal excision (TME) alone in patients treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is controversial, especially in laparoscopic surgery. This study was performed to evaluate the feasibility of adding laparoscopic LPLND to TME in patients with advanced lower rectal cancer and swollen LPLNs treated with preoperative CRT. We reviewed 327 patients with lower rectal cancer without distant metastasis who underwent preoperative CRT followed by laparoscopic TME. Laparoscopic LPLND was added in patients with swollen LPLNs before CRT. Outcomes were compared between patients with (n = 107) and without (n = 220) LPLND. LPLN metastasis was found in 26 patients (24.3 %) in the LPLND group. The operation time was significantly longer, and total blood loss was significantly greater in the LPLND than TME group (461 vs. 298 min and 115 vs. 30 mL, respectively; P < 0.0001). The major complication rate was similar in the LPLND and TME groups (9.3 vs. 5.5 %, respectively; P = 0.188), and there were no conversions to open surgery. The LPLND and TME groups also showed a similar 3-year relapse-free survival rate (84.7 vs. 82.0 %, respectively; P = 0.536) and local recurrence rate (3.2 vs. 5.2 %, respectively; P = 0.569) despite significantly more patients with pathological lymph node metastasis in the LPLND than TME group (37.4 vs. 22.3 %, respectively; P < 0.0001). Additional laparoscopic LPLND is feasible in patients with advanced lower rectal cancer and clinically swollen LPLNs treated with preoperative CRT, with no significant increase in major complications compared with TME alone.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据