ObjectiveTo compare the short-term efficacy of laparoscopic transanal pull through surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.MethodsRelevant literatures were retrieved from databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library databases, Embase, CNKI, CBM, Wan-fang database, and VIP databases from Jan. 2009 to Jul. 2019, all the relevant trial documents ［included randomized controlled trial and non randomized controlled trial］ were collected for comparison of laparoscopic transanal pull through surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery on the clinical efficacy of rectal cancer patients, the qualified literatures were screened in strict accordance with inclusion and exclusion criteria, and Stata12.0 software was used for statistical analysis.ResultsA total of 19 articles were included in the literature with 2 683 patients were included among them. Meta analysis results showed that, compared with the conventional laparoscopic surgery group, in laparoscopic transanal pull through surgery group, operation time [WMD=–6.78, 95% CI was (–11.96, –1.60), P<0.01], intraoperative blood loss [WMD=–14.94, 95% CI was (–23.48, –6.40),P<0.01], postoperative exhaust time [WMD=–13.55, 95% CI was (–18.24, –8.85), P<0.01], postoperative hospitalization time [WMD=–1.60, 95% CI was (–2.00, –1.21), P<0.01], incidence of postoperative overall complication [OR=0.50, 95% CI was (0.38, 0.67), P<0.01], and incidence of incision infection [OR=0.19, 95% CI was (0.08, 0.45), P<0.01] reduced. Those differences were not significant, such as intraoperative lymph node resection [WMD=–0.02, 95% CI was (–0.44, 0.40), P=0.92], incision margin distance of tumor [WMD=0.13, 95% CI was (–0.30, 0.55), P=0.56], and incidence of anastomotic fistula [OR=0.97, 95% CI was (0.62, 1.50), P=0.87].ConclusionsLaparoscopic transanal pull through surgery has more safe, effective, and reliable effects than conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. It has further research value, but there may be inevitable bias and other effects in the included literatures, so more randomized controlled clinical trials are needed in the future.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical feasibility and safety of CT-guided percutaneous microwave ablation for peripheral solitary pulmonary nodules.MethodsThe imaging and clinical data of 33 patients with pulmonary nodule less than 3 cm in diameter treated by CT-guided microwave ablation treatment (PMAT) in our hospital from July 2018 to December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 21 males and 12 females aged 38-90 (67.6±13.4) years. Among them, 26 patients were confirmed with lung cancer by biopsy and 7 patients were clinically considered as partial malignant lesions. The average diameter of 33 nodules was 0.6-3.0 (1.8±0.6) cm. The 3- and 6-month follow-up CT was performed to evaluate the therapy method by comparing the diameter and enhancement degree of lesions with 1-month CT manifestation. Short-term treatment analysis including complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD) was calculated according to the WHO modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumor (mRECIST) for short-term efficacy evaluation. Eventually the result of response rate (RR) was calculated. Progression-free survival was obtained by Kaplan–Meier analysis.ResultsCT-guided percutaneous microwave ablation was successfully conducted in all patients. Three patients suffered slight pneumothorax. There were 18 (54.5%) patients who achieved CR, 9 (27.3%) patients PR, 4 (12.1%) patients SD and 2 (6.1%) patients PD. The short-term follow-up effective rate was 81.8%. Logistic analysis demonstrated that primary and metastatic pulmonary nodules had no difference in progression-free time (log-rank P=0.624).ConclusionPMAT is of high success rate for the treatment of solitary pulmonary nodules without severe complications, which can be used as an effective alternative treatment for nonsurgical candidates.
ObjectiveTo compare the short-term outcomes of Da Vinci robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and video-assisted thoracoscopic-laparoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE) for esophageal cancer. MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on the data of patients with esophageal cancer admitted to Gansu Provincial People's Hospital from January 2021 to February 2025. Based on the surgical method, patients were divided into a RAMIE group and a VAMIE group. Both groups underwent standard McKeown three-incision surgery and systematic three-field lymph node dissection. Intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph nodes dissected, postoperative recovery indicators, and complication rates were compared. ResultsA total of 126 patients with esophageal cancer were included, of which 109 were male and 17 were female, with an average age of (64.6±8.8) years. The RAMIE group consisted of 36 patients and the VAMIE group 90 patients. There was no statistical difference in baseline indicators such as age, sex, and body mass index between the two groups (P>0.05). The difference in operation time between the two groups was not statistically significant [305.0 (280.0, 348.0) min vs. 300.0 (268.8, 340.0) min, P=0.457]. Compared with the VAMIE group, the RAMIE group had less intraoperative blood loss [100.0 (100.0, 120.0) mL vs. 100.0 (100.0, 200.0) mL, P=0.035], more intraoperative fluid infusion [(2244.7±610.3) mL vs. (1954.4±457.9) mL, P=0.013], a higher number of lymph nodes dissected [(27.9±10.6) nodes vs. (21.3±5.1) nodes, P<0.001], and the difference in the number of lymph node dissection groups was not statistically significant [8.0 (6.0, 8.0) groups vs. 7.0 (5.0, 8.0) groups, P=0.268]. In terms of postoperative recovery indicators, compared with the VAMIE group, the RAMIE group had shorter postoperative hospital stay [12.5 (9.0, 18.0) d vs. 17.0 (14.0, 22.0) d, P＜0.001] and shorter time with tubes [9.0 (8.0, 10.0) d vs. 10.0 (9.0, 12.0) d, P=0.007]. In terms of postoperative complications, the incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury in the RAMIE group was significantly lower than that in the VAMIE group (2.8% vs. 16.7%, P=0.039), there was no statistical difference in pulmonary infection, anastomosis leakage, and incision infection between the two groups (P>0.05). The total hospitalization cost of the RAMIE group was significantly higher than that of the VAMIE group (P<0.001). ConclusionRAMIE has significant advantages over VAMIE in terms of intraoperative bleeding control, the number of lymph node dissections, postoperative recovery speed, and reducing the risk of incision infection and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, with good safety and feasibility.