Open versus minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study in Peru

Descripción del Articulo

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to describe and compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery for rectal cancer in Peru. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective single-center analysis was performed for all patients who underwent sphinctersparing surgery for non-metastatic rectal cancer at Insti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Guevara-Jabiles, A, Berrospi-Espinoza, F, Chávez-Pasiauri, IK, Luque-Vásquez Vasquez, C, Payet-Meza, E, Baldeon, D, Caparachín, N, Ruiz-Figueroa, E
Formato: artículo
Fecha de Publicación:2022
Institución:Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas
Repositorio:INEN-Institucional
Lenguaje:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:repositorio.inen.sld.pe:20.500.14703/325
Enlace del recurso:https: //doi.org/10.47892/rgp.2022.421.1337
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14703/325
Nivel de acceso:acceso abierto
Materia:Rectal neoplasms
Minimally invasive surgical procedures
Sphincterotomy
Laparoscopy
https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.21
id INEN_f46cd437eb6a17b06b47dd7742ceb8ed
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.inen.sld.pe:20.500.14703/325
network_acronym_str INEN
network_name_str INEN-Institucional
repository_id_str .
spelling PublicationGuevara-Jabiles, ABerrospi-Espinoza, FChávez-Pasiauri, IKLuque-Vásquez Vasquez, CPayet-Meza, EBaldeon, DCaparachín, NRuiz-Figueroa, E2025-01-02T14:42:38Z2025-01-02T14:42:38Z2022https: //doi.org/10.47892/rgp.2022.421.1337https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14703/325Revista de gastroenterologia del PeruOBJECTIVE: The study aimed to describe and compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery for rectal cancer in Peru. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective single-center analysis was performed for all patients who underwent sphinctersparing surgery for non-metastatic rectal cancer at Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas in Peru between January 2016 and December 2020. Clinical, perioperative, pathological, and survival outcomes were compared between both groups. A propensity score matching method was used to minimize bias. RESULTS: 162 patients were included in the final analysis. 124 had open surgery and 38 had MIS. Patients, clinical tumour, pathological characteristics, and perioperative were similar between groups after matching. Similar circumferential resection margin (CRM) with optimal quality of the mesorectum (p=1.000) but higher number of lymph nodes resected in open surgery group (p=0.741) was described. The leakage rate was slightly higher in the MIS group (p=0.358) with 10.5%, while the postoperative hospital stay was longer in the open surgery group after matching (p=0.001 OR 95% 5.2 CI: 1.8-15.6). The estimated recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) at 3 years in open surgery and MIS was 71.8% (95% CI 0.58-0.89) and 70% (95% CI 0.56-0.88) (p=0.431) and 77.7% (95% CI 0.64-0.94) and 88.9% (95% CI 0.79-0.99) (p=0.5), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Shorter postoperative hospital stay in the minimally invasive surgery group was reported. RFS, OS, and recurrence rates were similar between both groups. This approach is for non-metastatic rectal cancer in referral centers in Peru.application/pdfengNLM (Medline)PEinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Rectal neoplasmsMinimally invasive surgical proceduresSphincterotomyLaparoscopyhttps://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.21Open versus minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study in Peruinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionreponame:INEN-Institucionalinstname:Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicasinstacron:INENORIGINAL1022-5129-rgp-42-01-33 (1).pdfapplication/pdf241024https://repositorio.inen.sld.pe/backend/api/core/bitstreams/23d361c0-09bc-4106-8434-9388a0712fe9/download0f2f6fe0efd56e788c8788cbc1b8c492MD51trueAnonymousREADTEXT1022-5129-rgp-42-01-33 (1).pdf.txtWritten by FormatFilter org.dspace.app.mediafilter.TikaTextExtractionFilter on 2025-08-25T08:03:03Z (GMT).Extracted texttext/plain37162https://repositorio.inen.sld.pe/backend/api/core/bitstreams/2f87e88d-edb0-4406-b931-0e4e2acdc6b1/downloada038e8fee3d2a3c8e0b47adcd95bb32aMD52falseAnonymousREADTHUMBNAIL1022-5129-rgp-42-01-33 (1).pdf.jpgWritten by FormatFilter org.dspace.app.mediafilter.PDFBoxThumbnail on 2025-08-25T08:03:03Z (GMT).Generated Thumbnailimage/jpeg42677https://repositorio.inen.sld.pe/backend/api/core/bitstreams/f715b6f0-2631-4b0d-bcc3-a0255a1d9565/downloadc10da50ec57aad2111f71bc035ad75f9MD53falseAnonymousREAD20.500.14703/325oai:repositorio.inen.sld.pe:20.500.14703/3252026-02-13T14:04:00.021Zhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessopen.accesshttps://repositorio.inen.sld.peRepositorio del Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicasrepositorio@inen.sld.pe
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Open versus minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study in Peru
title Open versus minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study in Peru
spellingShingle Open versus minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study in Peru
Guevara-Jabiles, A
Rectal neoplasms
Minimally invasive surgical procedures
Sphincterotomy
Laparoscopy
https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.21
title_short Open versus minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study in Peru
title_full Open versus minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study in Peru
title_fullStr Open versus minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study in Peru
title_full_unstemmed Open versus minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study in Peru
title_sort Open versus minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study in Peru
author Guevara-Jabiles, A
author_facet Guevara-Jabiles, A
Berrospi-Espinoza, F
Chávez-Pasiauri, IK
Luque-Vásquez Vasquez, C
Payet-Meza, E
Baldeon, D
Caparachín, N
Ruiz-Figueroa, E
author_role author
author2 Berrospi-Espinoza, F
Chávez-Pasiauri, IK
Luque-Vásquez Vasquez, C
Payet-Meza, E
Baldeon, D
Caparachín, N
Ruiz-Figueroa, E
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Guevara-Jabiles, A
Berrospi-Espinoza, F
Chávez-Pasiauri, IK
Luque-Vásquez Vasquez, C
Payet-Meza, E
Baldeon, D
Caparachín, N
Ruiz-Figueroa, E
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Rectal neoplasms
Minimally invasive surgical procedures
Sphincterotomy
Laparoscopy
topic Rectal neoplasms
Minimally invasive surgical procedures
Sphincterotomy
Laparoscopy
https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.21
dc.subject.ocde.none.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.21
description OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to describe and compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery for rectal cancer in Peru. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective single-center analysis was performed for all patients who underwent sphinctersparing surgery for non-metastatic rectal cancer at Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas in Peru between January 2016 and December 2020. Clinical, perioperative, pathological, and survival outcomes were compared between both groups. A propensity score matching method was used to minimize bias. RESULTS: 162 patients were included in the final analysis. 124 had open surgery and 38 had MIS. Patients, clinical tumour, pathological characteristics, and perioperative were similar between groups after matching. Similar circumferential resection margin (CRM) with optimal quality of the mesorectum (p=1.000) but higher number of lymph nodes resected in open surgery group (p=0.741) was described. The leakage rate was slightly higher in the MIS group (p=0.358) with 10.5%, while the postoperative hospital stay was longer in the open surgery group after matching (p=0.001 OR 95% 5.2 CI: 1.8-15.6). The estimated recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) at 3 years in open surgery and MIS was 71.8% (95% CI 0.58-0.89) and 70% (95% CI 0.56-0.88) (p=0.431) and 77.7% (95% CI 0.64-0.94) and 88.9% (95% CI 0.79-0.99) (p=0.5), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Shorter postoperative hospital stay in the minimally invasive surgery group was reported. RFS, OS, and recurrence rates were similar between both groups. This approach is for non-metastatic rectal cancer in referral centers in Peru.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv 2025-01-02T14:42:38Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv 2025-01-02T14:42:38Z
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv 2022
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.version.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv https: //doi.org/10.47892/rgp.2022.421.1337
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14703/325
dc.identifier.journal.none.fl_str_mv Revista de gastroenterologia del Peru
url https: //doi.org/10.47892/rgp.2022.421.1337
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14703/325
identifier_str_mv Revista de gastroenterologia del Peru
dc.language.iso.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.uri.none.fl_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv NLM (Medline)
dc.publisher.country.none.fl_str_mv PE
publisher.none.fl_str_mv NLM (Medline)
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:INEN-Institucional
instname:Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas
instacron:INEN
instname_str Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas
instacron_str INEN
institution INEN
reponame_str INEN-Institucional
collection INEN-Institucional
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.inen.sld.pe/backend/api/core/bitstreams/23d361c0-09bc-4106-8434-9388a0712fe9/download
https://repositorio.inen.sld.pe/backend/api/core/bitstreams/2f87e88d-edb0-4406-b931-0e4e2acdc6b1/download
https://repositorio.inen.sld.pe/backend/api/core/bitstreams/f715b6f0-2631-4b0d-bcc3-a0255a1d9565/download
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv 0f2f6fe0efd56e788c8788cbc1b8c492
a038e8fee3d2a3c8e0b47adcd95bb32a
c10da50ec57aad2111f71bc035ad75f9
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositorio del Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv repositorio@inen.sld.pe
_version_ 1868438565259575296
score 12.824051
Nota importante:
La información contenida en este registro es de entera responsabilidad de la institución que gestiona el repositorio institucional donde esta contenido este documento o set de datos. El CONCYTEC no se hace responsable por los contenidos (publicaciones y/o datos) accesibles a través del Repositorio Nacional Digital de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Acceso Abierto (ALICIA).