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.