Articles Vol. 66 No. VoL 66. English Version No 1, 2025 15/08/2025

33. EVALUATION OF EARLY OUTCOMES OF LAPAROSCOPIC LOW ANTERIOR RESECTION WITH STAPLED ANASTOMOSIS FOR RECTAL CANCER AT MILITARY HOSPITAL 175

Trinh Van Thao1, Nguyen Phu Thong1, Nguyen Quoc Trieu1, Truong Minh Nghi1, Nguyen Thanh Nam1
1 Military Hospital 175
Corresponding author: dr.nam175vn@gmail.com
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v66ienglish.2779
11 Views
15 Downloads
Keywords
Laparoscopic anterior resection Stapled anastomosis Mandibular trauma Short-term surgical outcomes Rectal cancer
Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the early outcomes of laparoscopic segmental colectomy and stapled anastomosis for rectal cancer treatment at Military Hospital 175.

Subjects and Methods: This study employed a cross-sectional design, incorporating both retrospective and prospective data collection, conducted at Military Hospital 175 from January 2023 to May 2025. The study included 72 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic segmental colectomy using stapling devices.

Results:

A total of 72 patients underwent laparoscopic rectal resection with a mean age of 62.7 ± 9.7 years and a mean BMI of 24.3 ± 2.1 kg/m². Most patients were classified as stage III (58.3%), with 69.5% presenting T3 tumors. The average operative time was 166.7 ± 50.7 minutes, which correlated significantly with disease stage (p = 0.048). Gastrointestinal function recovered early, with mean times to flatus, oral intake, and defecation of 2.26, 2.25, and 2.6 days, respectively. Early postoperative complications occurred in 7.0% of patients, all of whom were managed conservatively. The mean hospital stay was 7.62 days.

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic rectal resection demonstrated favorable short-term outcomes, including early gastrointestinal recovery, low complication rates, and acceptable operative times, supporting its clinical applicability in rectal cancer management

References
[1]
Siegel RL, Wagle NS, Cercek A, Smith RA, Jemal A. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73(3):233–54. Google Scholar
[2]
Rawla P, Sunkara T, Barsouk A. Epidemiology of colorectal cancer: incidence, mortality, survival, and risk factors. 2019;89–103. Google Scholar
[3]
Bärlehner E, Benhidjeb T, Anders S, Schicke B. Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: outcomes in 194 patients and review of the literature. Surg Endosc. 2005 Jun;19(6):757–66. Google Scholar
[4]
Ding Z, Wang Z, Huang S, Zhong S, Lin J. Comparison of laparoscopic vs. open surgery for rectal cancer. Mol Clin Oncol. 2017 Feb;6(2):170–6. Google Scholar
[5]
Cảnh NT, Anh TH, Phong TĐT, Phong CTT, Hoá NV, Anh NT, et al. Đặc điểm lâm sàng, cận lâm sàng và kết quả điều trị sớm ung thư trực tràng bằng phẫu thuật nội soi và các yếu tố liên quan tại bệnh viện đa khoa trung ương cần thơ. Tạp chí Y dược học Cần Thơ. 2023 Dec 25;(69):50–7. Google Scholar
[6]
Chen W, Li Q, Fan Y, Li D, Jiang L, Qiu P, et al. Factors Predicting Difficulty of Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer with Total Mesorectal Excision and Double Stapling Technique. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0151773. Google Scholar
[7]
Van der Pas MHGM, Deijen CL, Abis GSA, de Lange-de Klerk ESM, Haglind E, Fürst A, et al. Conversions in laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2017 May 1;31(5):2263–70. Google Scholar
[8]
Ding X, Yu Y, Chen M, Wang C, Kang Y, Lou J. Causative agents and outcome of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients: community-acquired versus nosocomial infections. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2019 May 23;19(1):463. Google Scholar
[9]
Trịnh Đình Hiệp, Hải ĐS, Hoàng LT, Liên NTD, Thắng TT, Thanh HC. Đánh giá kết quả sớm phẫu thuật nội soi cắt đoạn đại trực tràng nối máy điều trị ung thư trực tràng tại Bệnh Viện Quân Y 7a. Tạp chí y dược học Quân sự. 2022 Oct 28;47(8):133–44. Google Scholar
[10]
Gupta D, Gunter MJ, Yang K, Lee S, Zuckerwise L, Chen L, et al. Performance of Serum CA125 as a Prognostic Biomarker in Patients With Uterine Papillary Serous Carcinoma. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 2011 Apr 1;21(3):529–34. Google Scholar