Comparison between KeyPort access and traditional transanal endoscopic microsurgery in the treatment of rectal tumors
10.3760/cma.j.cn113855-20190725-00421
- VernacularTitle:经KeyPort通路和传统经肛门内镜微创手术治疗直肠肿瘤的疗效比较
- Author:
Zhigang GAO
1
;
Xiaofeng HAN
;
Yunlei WANG
;
Jianwei ZHENG
;
Yong YANG
;
Zhenjun WANG
Author Information
1. 首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院普外科 100020
- From:
Chinese Journal of General Surgery
2020;35(5):353-356
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety of KeyPort access and traditional transanal endoscopic microsurgery(TEM) in the treatment of rectal tumors.Methods:In this study, 36 cases of rectal tumors were treated by KeyPort TEM access and 52 cases by traditional TEM. Tumor type, size, distance from anal edge, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospitalization time, specimen quality and complications were compared between the two groups.Results:There were no significant differences in tumor type, size, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospitalization time, complications, recurrence and metastasis rate between the two groups. The distance between lower cutting edge to the anus in KeyPort access group was significantly greater than that of traditional TEM group[(6.7±1.9) vs. (5.1±1.8) cm , t=3.901, P<0.001]. All the surgeries in the KeyPort access group were completed. While two cases of in traditional TEM group were coverted to other surgical approaches. All patients in the KeyPort group had normal anal function in the early postoperative period, while 2 patients in the traditional TEM group suffered anal function impairment. Conclusion:TEM by KeyPort access is safer and more effective then traditional TEM, as well as more generous indications.
