Natural orifice specimen extraction in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: transanal and transvaginal approaches

Background This study was designed to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent various laparoscopic colorectal procedures with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) at our institute over a 20-year period. Specifically, the study aimed to investigate whether transanal and transvaginal app...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Techniques in coloproctology 2013-02, Vol.17 (Suppl 1), p.63-67
Hauptverfasser: Franklin, M. E., Liang, S., Russek, K.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 67
container_issue Suppl 1
container_start_page 63
container_title Techniques in coloproctology
container_volume 17
creator Franklin, M. E.
Liang, S.
Russek, K.
description Background This study was designed to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent various laparoscopic colorectal procedures with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) at our institute over a 20-year period. Specifically, the study aimed to investigate whether transanal and transvaginal approaches are safe and effective alternatives for extracting the specimen during laparoscopic colorectal surgeries. Methods We analyzed a prospectively designed database of a consecutive series of patients who underwent various laparoscopic colorectal surgeries for different rectal pathologies between April 1991 and May 2011 at the Texas Endosurgery Institute. The selection criteria for the NOSE approach were based on disease entities, site and size of tumors, and distance of colorectal lesions from the anal verge. Results A total of 303 patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal procedures with the NOSE approach for specimen extraction, including 277 transanal and 26 transvaginal extractions. The operative time for procedures with transanal specimen extraction was 164.7 ± 47.5 min, the estimated blood loss was 87.5 ± 46.7 ml, and the rate of postoperative complications was 3.6 %. For laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with transvaginal specimen extraction, the operative time was 159 ± 27.1 min and the estimated blood loss was 83.5 ± 14.4 ml. Intraoperatively, transvaginal extraction was associated with 2 complications (7.7 %); however, this procedure was not associated with any postoperative complications. The length of hospital stay was 6.9 ± 2.8 and 5.5 ± 2.5 days for patients who underwent transanal extraction and transvaginal extraction, respectively. Conclusions Both transanal and transvaginal specimen extractions in laparoscopic colorectal surgeries are safe and effective approaches with comparable postoperative complication rates. In comparison with transanal specimen extraction, transvaginal extraction is more complicated due to the anatomy of the pouch of Douglas. The transvaginal approach thus needs more effective extraction devices for preventing injury to adjacent organs, especially the sigmoid colon and rectum.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10151-012-0938-y
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1287385907</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1287385907</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-5f8b8a7346fe7135a7ca6dd698c7b684da59a5538260512c0f9e9310ebe7a44e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUtr3TAQhUVJaB7tD-gmGLLpxqnGsiw5uxCaB4Rmk0B3Yq48vlGwLVeyQ--_r3J9E0qhK0mjb84M5zD2BfgZcK6-ReAgIedQ5LwWOt98YIcAhc55KX_ube8ir4RQB-woxmfOQSkJH9lBIQrJK6EPWf8Dpzlgl_ngWmcpiyNZ19OQ0e8poJ2cHzI3ZB2OGHy0fnQ2s77zgeyU2uIc1hQ251mCh4hDKuHQLK8XXLttYRyDR_tE8RPbb7GL9Hl3HrPHq-8Plzf53f317eXFXW5LoadctnqlUYmyakmBkKgsVk1T1dqqVaXLBmWNUgpdVFxCYXlbUy2A04oUliWJY_Z10U2Df80UJ9O7aKnrcCA_R5M8UkLLmquEnv6DPvs5pLW3lIBSQykTBQtlkwkxUGvG4HoMGwPcvGZhlixMysK8ZmE2qedkpzyvemreO97MT0CxADF9DcnGv0b_V_UPh0uWgw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1283148145</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Natural orifice specimen extraction in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: transanal and transvaginal approaches</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Franklin, M. E. ; Liang, S. ; Russek, K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Franklin, M. E. ; Liang, S. ; Russek, K.</creatorcontrib><description>Background This study was designed to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent various laparoscopic colorectal procedures with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) at our institute over a 20-year period. Specifically, the study aimed to investigate whether transanal and transvaginal approaches are safe and effective alternatives for extracting the specimen during laparoscopic colorectal surgeries. Methods We analyzed a prospectively designed database of a consecutive series of patients who underwent various laparoscopic colorectal surgeries for different rectal pathologies between April 1991 and May 2011 at the Texas Endosurgery Institute. The selection criteria for the NOSE approach were based on disease entities, site and size of tumors, and distance of colorectal lesions from the anal verge. Results A total of 303 patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal procedures with the NOSE approach for specimen extraction, including 277 transanal and 26 transvaginal extractions. The operative time for procedures with transanal specimen extraction was 164.7 ± 47.5 min, the estimated blood loss was 87.5 ± 46.7 ml, and the rate of postoperative complications was 3.6 %. For laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with transvaginal specimen extraction, the operative time was 159 ± 27.1 min and the estimated blood loss was 83.5 ± 14.4 ml. Intraoperatively, transvaginal extraction was associated with 2 complications (7.7 %); however, this procedure was not associated with any postoperative complications. The length of hospital stay was 6.9 ± 2.8 and 5.5 ± 2.5 days for patients who underwent transanal extraction and transvaginal extraction, respectively. Conclusions Both transanal and transvaginal specimen extractions in laparoscopic colorectal surgeries are safe and effective approaches with comparable postoperative complication rates. In comparison with transanal specimen extraction, transvaginal extraction is more complicated due to the anatomy of the pouch of Douglas. The transvaginal approach thus needs more effective extraction devices for preventing injury to adjacent organs, especially the sigmoid colon and rectum.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1123-6337</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1128-045X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10151-012-0938-y</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23250638</identifier><identifier>CODEN: TECOFO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Milan: Springer Milan</publisher><subject>Abdominal Surgery ; Aged ; Anal Canal ; Blood Loss, Surgical - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Colorectal Surgery ; Colorectal Surgery - methods ; Female ; Gastroenterology ; How I Do It ; Humans ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery - methods ; Patient Selection ; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology ; Proctology ; Prospective Studies ; Surgery ; Treatment Outcome ; Vagina</subject><ispartof>Techniques in coloproctology, 2013-02, Vol.17 (Suppl 1), p.63-67</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Italia 2012</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag Italia 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-5f8b8a7346fe7135a7ca6dd698c7b684da59a5538260512c0f9e9310ebe7a44e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-5f8b8a7346fe7135a7ca6dd698c7b684da59a5538260512c0f9e9310ebe7a44e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10151-012-0938-y$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10151-012-0938-y$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23250638$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Franklin, M. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liang, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russek, K.</creatorcontrib><title>Natural orifice specimen extraction in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: transanal and transvaginal approaches</title><title>Techniques in coloproctology</title><addtitle>Tech Coloproctol</addtitle><addtitle>Tech Coloproctol</addtitle><description>Background This study was designed to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent various laparoscopic colorectal procedures with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) at our institute over a 20-year period. Specifically, the study aimed to investigate whether transanal and transvaginal approaches are safe and effective alternatives for extracting the specimen during laparoscopic colorectal surgeries. Methods We analyzed a prospectively designed database of a consecutive series of patients who underwent various laparoscopic colorectal surgeries for different rectal pathologies between April 1991 and May 2011 at the Texas Endosurgery Institute. The selection criteria for the NOSE approach were based on disease entities, site and size of tumors, and distance of colorectal lesions from the anal verge. Results A total of 303 patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal procedures with the NOSE approach for specimen extraction, including 277 transanal and 26 transvaginal extractions. The operative time for procedures with transanal specimen extraction was 164.7 ± 47.5 min, the estimated blood loss was 87.5 ± 46.7 ml, and the rate of postoperative complications was 3.6 %. For laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with transvaginal specimen extraction, the operative time was 159 ± 27.1 min and the estimated blood loss was 83.5 ± 14.4 ml. Intraoperatively, transvaginal extraction was associated with 2 complications (7.7 %); however, this procedure was not associated with any postoperative complications. The length of hospital stay was 6.9 ± 2.8 and 5.5 ± 2.5 days for patients who underwent transanal extraction and transvaginal extraction, respectively. Conclusions Both transanal and transvaginal specimen extractions in laparoscopic colorectal surgeries are safe and effective approaches with comparable postoperative complication rates. In comparison with transanal specimen extraction, transvaginal extraction is more complicated due to the anatomy of the pouch of Douglas. The transvaginal approach thus needs more effective extraction devices for preventing injury to adjacent organs, especially the sigmoid colon and rectum.</description><subject>Abdominal Surgery</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Anal Canal</subject><subject>Blood Loss, Surgical - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Colorectal Surgery</subject><subject>Colorectal Surgery - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>How I Do It</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery - methods</subject><subject>Patient Selection</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Proctology</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Vagina</subject><issn>1123-6337</issn><issn>1128-045X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUtr3TAQhUVJaB7tD-gmGLLpxqnGsiw5uxCaB4Rmk0B3Yq48vlGwLVeyQ--_r3J9E0qhK0mjb84M5zD2BfgZcK6-ReAgIedQ5LwWOt98YIcAhc55KX_ube8ir4RQB-woxmfOQSkJH9lBIQrJK6EPWf8Dpzlgl_ngWmcpiyNZ19OQ0e8poJ2cHzI3ZB2OGHy0fnQ2s77zgeyU2uIc1hQ251mCh4hDKuHQLK8XXLttYRyDR_tE8RPbb7GL9Hl3HrPHq-8Plzf53f317eXFXW5LoadctnqlUYmyakmBkKgsVk1T1dqqVaXLBmWNUgpdVFxCYXlbUy2A04oUliWJY_Z10U2Df80UJ9O7aKnrcCA_R5M8UkLLmquEnv6DPvs5pLW3lIBSQykTBQtlkwkxUGvG4HoMGwPcvGZhlixMysK8ZmE2qedkpzyvemreO97MT0CxADF9DcnGv0b_V_UPh0uWgw</recordid><startdate>20130201</startdate><enddate>20130201</enddate><creator>Franklin, M. E.</creator><creator>Liang, S.</creator><creator>Russek, K.</creator><general>Springer Milan</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130201</creationdate><title>Natural orifice specimen extraction in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: transanal and transvaginal approaches</title><author>Franklin, M. E. ; Liang, S. ; Russek, K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-5f8b8a7346fe7135a7ca6dd698c7b684da59a5538260512c0f9e9310ebe7a44e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Abdominal Surgery</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Anal Canal</topic><topic>Blood Loss, Surgical - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Colorectal Surgery</topic><topic>Colorectal Surgery - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>How I Do It</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery - methods</topic><topic>Patient Selection</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Proctology</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Vagina</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Franklin, M. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liang, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russek, K.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Techniques in coloproctology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Franklin, M. E.</au><au>Liang, S.</au><au>Russek, K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Natural orifice specimen extraction in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: transanal and transvaginal approaches</atitle><jtitle>Techniques in coloproctology</jtitle><stitle>Tech Coloproctol</stitle><addtitle>Tech Coloproctol</addtitle><date>2013-02-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>Suppl 1</issue><spage>63</spage><epage>67</epage><pages>63-67</pages><issn>1123-6337</issn><eissn>1128-045X</eissn><coden>TECOFO</coden><abstract>Background This study was designed to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent various laparoscopic colorectal procedures with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) at our institute over a 20-year period. Specifically, the study aimed to investigate whether transanal and transvaginal approaches are safe and effective alternatives for extracting the specimen during laparoscopic colorectal surgeries. Methods We analyzed a prospectively designed database of a consecutive series of patients who underwent various laparoscopic colorectal surgeries for different rectal pathologies between April 1991 and May 2011 at the Texas Endosurgery Institute. The selection criteria for the NOSE approach were based on disease entities, site and size of tumors, and distance of colorectal lesions from the anal verge. Results A total of 303 patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal procedures with the NOSE approach for specimen extraction, including 277 transanal and 26 transvaginal extractions. The operative time for procedures with transanal specimen extraction was 164.7 ± 47.5 min, the estimated blood loss was 87.5 ± 46.7 ml, and the rate of postoperative complications was 3.6 %. For laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with transvaginal specimen extraction, the operative time was 159 ± 27.1 min and the estimated blood loss was 83.5 ± 14.4 ml. Intraoperatively, transvaginal extraction was associated with 2 complications (7.7 %); however, this procedure was not associated with any postoperative complications. The length of hospital stay was 6.9 ± 2.8 and 5.5 ± 2.5 days for patients who underwent transanal extraction and transvaginal extraction, respectively. Conclusions Both transanal and transvaginal specimen extractions in laparoscopic colorectal surgeries are safe and effective approaches with comparable postoperative complication rates. In comparison with transanal specimen extraction, transvaginal extraction is more complicated due to the anatomy of the pouch of Douglas. The transvaginal approach thus needs more effective extraction devices for preventing injury to adjacent organs, especially the sigmoid colon and rectum.</abstract><cop>Milan</cop><pub>Springer Milan</pub><pmid>23250638</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10151-012-0938-y</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1123-6337
ispartof Techniques in coloproctology, 2013-02, Vol.17 (Suppl 1), p.63-67
issn 1123-6337
1128-045X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1287385907
source MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals
subjects Abdominal Surgery
Aged
Anal Canal
Blood Loss, Surgical - statistics & numerical data
Colorectal Surgery
Colorectal Surgery - methods
Female
Gastroenterology
How I Do It
Humans
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery - methods
Patient Selection
Postoperative Complications - epidemiology
Proctology
Prospective Studies
Surgery
Treatment Outcome
Vagina
title Natural orifice specimen extraction in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: transanal and transvaginal approaches
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T00%3A06%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Natural%20orifice%20specimen%20extraction%20in%20laparoscopic%20colorectal%20surgery:%20transanal%20and%20transvaginal%20approaches&rft.jtitle=Techniques%20in%20coloproctology&rft.au=Franklin,%20M.%20E.&rft.date=2013-02-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=Suppl%201&rft.spage=63&rft.epage=67&rft.pages=63-67&rft.issn=1123-6337&rft.eissn=1128-045X&rft.coden=TECOFO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10151-012-0938-y&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1287385907%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1283148145&rft_id=info:pmid/23250638&rfr_iscdi=true