Transvaginal natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for 3D laparoscopic radical cystectomy: A cohort study

0Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: Transvaginal natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has been widely used in laparoscopic surgery due to its benefits. However, laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) with NOSES has rarely been reported. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of 25 patients who underwent 3D LRC with NOSES from November 2014 to November 2019 was performed. The clinical and perioperative related data, peri and postoperative complications, and oncologic outcomes were recorded. Results: Surgery was successfully completed in 25 patients, and none were converted to open surgery. Mean total operative time was 294.1 ± 48.80 min. Mean NOSES time was12 ± 6.48 min. The median post-op hospital stay was 10.5 d (range 6-27 d). The median visual analog pain score on post-op day 1, 2, and 3 was 2, 2, and 1, respectively. Thirteen patients had 30-day complications (3 had Clavien grade I and 11 had Clavien grade II). Pelvic floor distress inventory-short form 20 (PFDI-20) was 9.8 ± 1.9 after three months (compared with pre-PFDI-20, P = 0.06) and 9.3 ± 1.2 after six months (compared with pre-PFDI-20, P = 0.15). At the mean follow-up of 24.7 ± 12.05 months (range 11-60 months), one patient (4%) had recurrence, two (8%) had metastasis, and one (4%) died. Conclusion: Transvaginal NOSES in 3D LRC is safe and feasible. Understanding the female vagina anatomy and comprehending the techniques is conducive to avoid incision-related complications. NOSES is minimally invasive with good cosmetic outcomes with few surgical complications or affecting pelvic floor function.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wu, L., Zhao, Q., Yang, F., Wang, M., & Xing, N. (2023). Transvaginal natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for 3D laparoscopic radical cystectomy: A cohort study. Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics, 19(4), 892–897. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_1612_22

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free