Background: Mid-rectal cancer treatment traditionally involves conventional laparoscopic-assisted resection (CLAR). This study aimed to assess the clinical and therapeutic advantages of Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery (NOSES) over CLAR.
Aims: To compare the clinical outcomes, intraoperative metrics, postoperative recovery, complications, and long-term prognosis between NOSES and CLAR groups.
Materials & methods: A total of 136 patients were analyzed, with 92 undergoing CLAR and 44 undergoing NOSES. Clinical outcomes were evaluated, and propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to control potential biases.
Results: The NOSES group exhibited significant improvements in postoperative recovery, including lower pain scores on days 1, 3, and 5 (p < .001), reduced need for additional analgesics (p = .02), shorter hospital stays (10.8 ± 2.3 vs. 14.2 ± 5.3 days; p < .001), and decreased intraoperative blood loss (48.1 ± 52.7 mL vs. 71.0 ± 55.0 mL; p = .03). Patients undergoing NOSES also reported enhanced satisfaction with postoperative abdominal appearance and better quality of life. Additionally, the NOSES approach resulted in fewer postoperative complications.
Conclusion: While long-term outcomes (overall survival, disease-free survival, and local recurrence rates) were comparable between the two methods, NOSES demonstrated superior postoperative outcomes compared to CLAR in mid-rectal cancer treatment, while maintaining similar long-term oncological safety. These findings suggest that NOSES could serve as an effective alternative to CLAR without compromising long-term results.
Keywords: conventional laparoscopic‐assisted resection; long‐term outcomes; mid‐rectal cancer; natural orifice specimen extraction surgery; postoperative recovery; quality of life.
© 2024 The Authors. Cancer Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.