A comparative analysis of different reduced-port laparoscopic surgical procedures after non-curative endoscopic resection for early colorectal cancer.

Introduction:Surgery serves as a salvage procedure for non-curative resection of early-stage colorectal cancer under endoscopy. A standard method for performing additional surgery after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early colorectal cancer has yet to be established. Aim:To enhance the understanding of different surgical outcomes by discussing additional treatment strategies following non-complete curative endoscopic resection of early colorectal cancer. Material and methods:This retrospective study included 88 patients who were divided into three groups based on the surgical approach: conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS), single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS+1), and three-port laparoscopic surgery combined with natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (three-port NOSES). The study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes, safety, and postoperative recovery among these groups. Results:The SILS+1 and three-port NOSES groups demonstrated comparable safety and efficacy to the CLS group in terms of blood loss, complications, number of lymph node dissections, and length of bowel resection. However, the SILS+1 and three-port NOSES groups had advantages in terms of incision length (7.11 ±0.38, 4.24 ±0.33, 3.16 ±0.22, p < 0.001), postoperative pain (4.000 [3.0,5.0], 3.500 [3.0,4.0], 3.000 [3.0,4.0]; p = 0.003), cosmetic result (4.000 [3.8,5.0], 7.000 [7.0,8.0], 7.000 [7.0,8.0]; p < 0.001), and hospital stay (8.000 [7.0,9.0], 7.000 [6.3,8.0.], 7.000 [6.3,8.0]; p = 0.035). Conclusions:Different strategies of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery have been demonstrated to be effective and safe in additional surgery after non-curative ESD. These techniques have shown reduced pain and increased satisfaction among patients. Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery is expected to become the preferred treatment option for these patients.