3.9 Article

Single-Port Laparoscopic Sphincter-Saving Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer Report of the First 4 Human Cases

期刊

ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
卷 146, 期 1, 页码 75-81

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2010.300

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypothesis: Single-port laparoscopic rectal surgery can be performed using the principles of oncologic surgery in institutes experienced in laparoscopy with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Design: Sphincter-saving mesorectal excision in 4 human cases via a single laparoscopic port. Settings: A university hospital and a private hospital. Patients: A series of 4 patients who underwent single-port laparoscopic sphincter-saving rectal resection for rectal cancer. Two of them were total and 2 were partial mesorectal excisions. Interventions: An umbilical incision was made to place the multichannel single port. The sigmoid colon was hung to the left lateral abdominal wall using an intracorporeal stitch passing through its appendices epiploicae to achieve medial dissection and vascular ligation. The mesorectum was sharply dissected down to the pelvic floor. Endoscopic linear roticulating staplers were used to divide the rectum and proximal colon. A specimen was retrieved using an extraction bag through the umbilicus. Anastomosis was performed using a circular stapler, or pull-through hand-sewn anastomosis was performed. Main Outcome Measures: Duration of the operation, length of hospital stay, surgical complications, wound size, and histopathologic data. Results: There were no perioperative or postoperative complications. Mean operative time was 347 minutes (range, 240-480 minutes). Mean hospital stay was 4.25 days (range, 4-5 days). Mean wound size was 3.5 cm (range, 3-4 cm). Mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 15 (range, 8-28). Conclusions: With the help of sophisticated surgical technology and techniques, single-port laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer will be feasible while also maintaining oncologic principles and patient safety.

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

3.9
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