自然腔道取直肠癌标本的进展研究
Progressive Study on Obtaining Rectal Cancer Specimens through Natural Orifices
摘要: 在过去的30年里,结直肠手术已经发展到包括微创手术技术。微创手术与减少术后疼痛、减少伤口并发症、更早恢复肠道功能以及可能缩短住院时间有关。与开放手术相比,这些好处归因于手术创伤的减少。通过“微型剖腹手术”在结直肠手术中提取标本的需要会抵消微创手术的许多优势。自然孔道标本提取则体现了巨大的优势,例如阴道或远端胃肠道,以取出标本。该技术的前提是减少移除标本所需的创伤,并期望这可以改善结果。与传统标本提取相比,在使用NOSE的结直肠手术中观察到术后镇痛药使用减少、肠功能恢复更快和住院时间更短。
Abstract: In the past 30 years, colorectal surgery has evolved to include minimally invasive surgical tech-niques. Minimally invasive surgery is associated with reducing postoperative pain, reducing wound complications, restoring intestinal function earlier, and possibly shortening hospital stay. Compared to open surgery, these benefits are attributed to a reduction in surgical trauma. The need to extract specimens during colorectal surgery through “mini laparotomy” will offset many of the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. The extraction of natural pore specimens demonstrates significant advantages, such as the vagina or distal gastrointestinal tract, in order to extract specimens. The premise of this technology is to reduce the trauma required to remove specimens, and it is expected that this can improve the results. Compared to traditional specimen extraction, reduced postopera-tive analgesic use, faster intestinal function recovery, and shorter hospital stay were observed in colorectal surgery using NOSE.
文章引用:伊木然·吾斯曼江, 王海江. 自然腔道取直肠癌标本的进展研究[J]. 临床医学进展, 2023, 13(10): 16602-16607. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2023.13102324

1. 微创手术

Jacobs于1991年进行了首例腹腔镜结肠切除术,此技术在结直肠癌治疗中迅速普及。经过十年的探索、实践和简化,腹腔镜结肠切除术在死亡率、术后恢复、住院时间和美容结果方面优于开腹手术,而且没有损害长期癌症结果的风险 [1] 。与开放手术相比,结直肠微创手术可改善预后并减少并发症 [2] 。尽管有这些优点,但与为结直肠标本提取而制作的腹壁切口相关的发病率很高。在微创结直肠手术中,最长切口的长度取决于提取标本所需的长度:即所谓的微型剖腹手术。用于标本提取的微型剖腹手术与伤口感染、疝气和术后疼痛增加有关 [3] 。自然孔口标本提取消除了提取部位的创伤,而这在其他情况下总是需要的。不是通过腹部切口获取标本,而是使用内脏切开术来提取标本,这使患者能够完全避免与较大的腹部切口相关的并发症 [4] 。NOSE在结直肠手术中的可行性已得到充分证明 [5] [6] 。

1.1. NOSES

NOSES的定义如下:在腹腔内进行手术标本切除,然后通过与身体外部相通的中空器官切口提取标本,例如肛门、阴道或口腔。迄今为止,已经有许多案例研究报道了从直肠、肛门、阴道和口腔中取出结直肠手术标本的案例。除结直肠手术外,还可应用于胃肠、肝胆、泌尿、妇科等领域 [7] 。随着技术的不断成熟,该技术现已成功应用于炎症性肠病、憩室炎、和恶性肿瘤。在目前的临床实践中,根据标本提取的途径,NOSES分为三种类型:经肛门NOSES (Ta-NOSES)、经阴道NOSES (Tv-NOSES)和经口NOSES (To-NOSES) [8] 。在选择标本提取路径时应遵循两个原则,即肿瘤手术中的功能保留原则和手术风险–收益平衡原则。同时,标本提取的路径也需要考虑多种因素,包括标本大小、BMI、肠系膜厚度、肿瘤分期、肿瘤位置、器官类型等。从标本尺寸来看,Tv-NOSES适用于较大的标本,因为阴道的延展性好,其次是Ta-NOSES。To-NOSES仅适用于较小尺寸的标本 [9] [10] 。

在某些情况下,小型剖腹手术用于执行大部分手术,如手助腹腔镜检查。切除更近端的标本,如在右结肠切除术中,需要熟练的内窥镜医师在场,他可以通过远端胃肠道的长度在腔内圈套和拉动标本。通过阴道提取标本需要进行阴道后切开术,这是一种通常不由普通外科医生或结直肠外科医生执行的手术操作 [11] [12] 。

与左侧结肠病变相比,对这些技术技能的要求在去除右侧结肠病变时更为重要。通过远端结肠切开术通过下胃肠道提取的右侧结肠切除术标本必须使用内窥镜穿过剩余的横结肠、降结肠和乙状结肠的长度,通过直肠并从肛门排出。乙状结肠在解剖学上狭窄,由于标本体积大,10名患者中有2名通过结肠切开术提取失败 [13] 。阴道切开术是妇科医生常用的一种安全技术,已应用于妇科和结直肠病变的NOSE。结直肠手术中第一次记录的阴道标本提取是在1990年代。鉴于使用远端结肠进行标本提取存在困难,该技术将继续实施,特别是对于右侧结肠病理学 [14] 。

1.2. NOSE的应用

大型病例系列和随机对照试验证明了接受NOSE的结直肠手术患者的术后镇痛得到改善。几个较大的病例系列报告了NOSE后镇痛药的使用减少和疼痛评分改善。Wolthuis [15] 等人进行了一项随机对照、单盲研究,以比较NOSE和常规标本提取组的术后镇痛药使用情况。该研究旨在显示手术后镇痛剂使用的差异。NOSE组使用的对乙酰氨基酚和患者自控硬膜外镇痛明显较少。1周后疼痛评分仍然显着降低 [16] 。

在将NOSE与传统标本提取进行比较时,描述了通过手术后第一次排气或第一次排便的时间来衡量肠道功能的更快恢复。一种可能的解释是术后肠梗阻不太常见,因为对肠道的操作减少了,并且肠道不再暴露于体外环境。早期的肠功能可能有助于缩短住院时间 [17] 。Saurabh等人除了住院时间缩短外,再入院率没有增加。然而,存在一些差异,因为文献中的其他几项研究表明,与传统标本提取相比,住院时间的长短没有差异 [18] 。

与传统的标本提取相比,接受NOSE的患者的美容效果更好;然而,Wolthuis等人在病例匹配系列中对此进行了更客观的调查。他们发现,通过身体形象问卷和患者疤痕评估问卷评估,NOSE组的美容效果明显更好。这种美容优势可以作为选择可以从结肠直肠手术中的NOSE获益的患者的因素考虑 [19] 。

虽然目前仍需要更多的随机对照试验来比较这两种技术,但潜在的好处,包括更少的术后镇痛、更好的美容、更快的肠功能恢复和更短的住院时间,可能是显着的。这解释了使用NOSE技术的动机,但需要在严格选择的患者人群的背景下考虑这些有利的结果 [20] 。回顾结直肠手术NOSE文献的最大困难之一各个研究之间手术技术的广泛异质性,技术差异包括单钉吻合与双钉或三钉吻合以及使用标本袋或伤口保护器来取出标本。这些变量会严重混淆结果,引入和实施任何新的手术技术都涉及标准化,以便可以教授和传播该技能以实现更广泛的采用。最近,包括一些随机对照试验在内的更大范围的系列试验以一致的、描述清楚的、逐步的方式进行 [21] 。由于其中一些研究显示了结果的益处,因此这些研究中描述的操作将是标准化结直肠手术中NOSE的最佳框架。经肛门标本取出对肛门括约肌功能及术后排便功能的影响是Ta-NOSES的核心问题 [22] 。近年来,关于Ta-NOSES的研究逐渐增多,但未见术后肛门功能异常或括约肌损伤的报道。此外,中国的一项多中心研究表明,只有极少数接受Ta-NOSES治疗的患者出现了不同程度的术后肛门功能障碍。因此,为防止肛门括约肌损伤,经肛门取标本时应严格遵循NOSES指征,操作轻柔 [23] 。

2. 加速康复外科

加速康复外科是一种基于证据的多学科围手术期护理途径和一项手术质量改进计划,已被证明可以促进患者的术后恢复,并降低术后并发症发生率,缩短住院时间并降低成本,目前已经在多个国家得到应用。因为ERAS方法已被证明可以降低手术压力通过其尽可能维持患者正常生理机能的目标,任何接受手术的患者都可以从该方法中受益 [24] [25] 。“加速康复”最初由丹麦结直肠外科医生Henrik Kehlet提出并实施,加速康复外科学会(https://www.erassociety.org)是一个由外科医生、麻醉师、护士和专职医疗专业人员组成的国际性、多学科、非营利组织,它提供ERAS计划,并提出了建议并制定了指南结直肠手术,妇科手术,胰十二指肠切除术,肝切除术,胃切除术,例泌尿外科11例和食管切除术12例均已实施,效果良好 [26] 。

ERAS方法可分为3个主要部分:术前、术中和术后。术前ERAS的主要内容包括:术前辅导、手术前4周停止吸烟和饮酒、调查和治疗贫血、HRT和OCP停止、营养咨询和评估、碳水化合物负荷、避免肠道准备;术中的干预包括:抗生素、常温、血容量;术后的干预包括:延长VTE预防、多模式镇痛和恶心控制、避免鼻胃管抽吸和腹腔引流、血容量、积极动员、拔除导尿管、早期喂养、高蛋白饮食 [27] 。

2.1. ERAS的术前优化

在手术前4周停止吸烟和饮酒,并在必要时开出维生素和硫胺素替代品。术前指导还建议患者在术前停止口服避孕药和激素替代,以降低围手术期静脉血栓栓塞的风险。系统评价和荟萃分析表明,术前碳水化合物负荷增加胰岛素敏感性、减少术后炎症、缩短住院时间并改善患者报告的结果 [28] 。前瞻性研究和评论表明,在手术前7~10天补充营养可减少手术并发症并似乎可以改善结果。尽管术前营养不良与发病率和死亡率增加有关,但尚未推荐具体的营养评估作为术前评估的金标准 [29] 。

目前的一些证据表明,肠道准备与口服抗生素联合使用可降低结直肠手术患者手术部位感染的发生率。然而,大多数遵循ERAS方案的站点建议不要为盆腔手术(例如妇科和妇科肿瘤科)进行常规肠道准备,因为妇科手术的肠漏率和随后的感染率较低 [30] 。

一些研究发现 [31] ,在切开手术前一小时内使用抗生素(通常是头孢唑林,因为它具有高疗效和成本效益)可以降低术后皮肤菌群感染的发生率 [30] [31] 。如果手术持续时间超过3小时以及术中大量失血(>1000 mL),则应在手术期间给予另一剂抗生素。越来越多的证据支持增加病态肥胖患者的抗生素剂量。一项针对接受妇科手术患者的前瞻性研究发现,与回顾性队列相比,在手术前一晚使用洗必泰清洗剂的患者手术部位感染减少,相应的治疗费用也降低 [32] 。

2.2. ERAS的术后优化

早期经口喂养已被证明与肠功能的加速恢复和住院时间的缩短有关,而且大多数手术的并发症发生率没有增加。妇科肿瘤手术(包括涉及肠切除术的手术)术后早期喂养的随机对照试验表明,早期经口进食是有益的 [33] 。

应使用术后液体来维持血容量正常。随着口服进食的快速进展和对术后尿量减少的接受,在术后第1天停止静脉输液以避免液体超负荷并改善活动能力是合理的。动员和恢复正常功能是ERAS的重要组成部分,需要综合团队的努力。早期活动有助于防止肺功能受损,促进更快恢复,减少血栓栓塞并发症和肠梗阻,并减少肌肉萎缩。许多规程包括在手术后24小时内主动活动患者,大多数建议在手术当天至少活动2小时,然后在随后的所有住院日活动6小时 [34] 。

使用阿片类镇痛药来管理剖腹手术术后疼痛一直是传统方法。然而,阿片类镇痛的不良反应包括术后肠梗阻、便秘和恶心,以及嗜睡、意识模糊和呼吸缓慢,这限制了早期进食和活动的进展。硬膜外镇痛可能是扩大剖腹手术切口后的一种有用的替代方法,可以限制阿片类药物的使用,通过改善疼痛控制来改善动员,并通过降低阿片类药物的水平来减少恶心。然而,硬膜外镇痛可能导致继发于外周血管扩张的低血压、延迟拔除导尿管、许多ERAS方案现在常规提倡使用非甾体抗炎药和对乙酰氨基酚的常规预定剂量的麻醉剂节约方法,这已在妇科ERAS方案实施审计中显示,可以减少阿片类药物的消耗和相关的不良反应 [35] [36] 。

3. 总结

实施加速康复的目的是减少患者的住院时间,促进他们恢复活动能力和功能,并降低术后并发症的发生率,所有这些也可能降低与手术相关的费用。由于ERAS的基本原则是降低手术压力和维持正常生理机能,因此理想情况下,这些原则应适用于所有接受手术的患者。尽管实施此类协议面临挑战,但对患者和医疗保健系统来说有明显的优势,尽管有些问题仍未得到解答。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Izquierdo, K.M., Unal, E. and Marks, J.H. (2018) Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction in Colorectal Surgery: Patient Se-lection and Perspectives. Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, 11, 265-279.
https://doi.org/10.2147/CEG.S135331
[2] 乔祥社, 张志松, 杭健, 赵宏久, 郭攀华, 卞锐, 胡光龙. 经自然腔道取标本在结直肠癌手术治疗中的临床疗效及安全性的Meta分析[J]. 中国医药科学, 2020, 10(17): 53-59.
[3] Ren, L., Zhu, D., Wei, Y., et al. (2012) Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Program Attenuates Stress and Accelerates Recovery in Patients after Radical Resection for Colorectal Cancer: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. World Journal of Surgery, 36, 407-414.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-011-1348-4
[4] Melloul, E., Hübner, M., Scott, M., et al. (2016) Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Liver Surgery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations. World Journal of Surgery, 40, 2425-2440.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3700-1
[5] Shen, M.Y. and Chen, W.T.L. (2020) Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction (NOSE) with Single-Stapling Anastomosis for Left Colon Cancer. Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery, 23, 201-203.
https://doi.org/10.7602/jmis.2020.23.4.201
[6] Liu, Z., Efetov, S., Guan, X., et al. (2019) A Multicenter Study Evaluating Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery for Rectal Cancer. Journal of Surgical Research, 243, 236-241.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.05.034
[7] (2017) Practice Guidelines for Preoperative Fasting and the Use of Pharmacologic Agents to Reduce the Risk of Pulmonary Aspiration: Application to Healthy Patients Undergoing Elective Procedures: An Updated Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Preoperative Fast-ing and the Use of Pharmacologic Agents to Reduce the Risk of Pulmonary Aspiration. Anesthesiology, 126, 376-393.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000001452
[8] Kayaalp, C. and Yagci, M.A. (2015) Laparoscopic Right Colon Resection with Transvaginal Extraction: A Systematic Review of 90 Cases. Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques, 25, 384-391.
https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000000124
[9] Anania, G., Arezzo, A., Davies, R.J., Marchetti, F., Zhang, S., Di Saverio, S., Cirocchi, R. and Donini, A. (2021) A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Laparoscopic vs Open Right Hemicolectomy with Complete Mesocolic Excision. International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 36, 1609-1620.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-021-03891-0
[10] China NOSES Alliance, Professional Committee of Natural Ori-fice Specimen Extraction Surgery and Colorectal Cancer Committee of Chinese Medical Doctor Association (2019) Ex-pert Consensus of Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery in Colorectal Neoplasm (2019). Chinese Journal of Col-orectal Disease Template, 8, 336-342.
[11] Brincat, S.D., Lauri, J. and Cini, C. (2022) Natural Orifice versus Trans-abdominal Specimen Extraction in Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: Meta-Analysis. BJS Open, 6, zrac074.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac074
[12] Zhang, M., Liu, Z. and Wang, X. (2022) Is Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery the Future Direction of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery? Surgery Open Science, 18, 106-110.
[13] Wang, X., Efetov, S.K., Liu, Z., Medkova, Y.S., Kitsenko, Y.E., Picciariello, A., Tulina, I.A. and Tsarkov, P.V. (2020) Transrectal Specimen Extraction after Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy with Extended D3 Lymph Node Dissection (Anterior Medial to Lateral Approach)—A Video Vignette. Colorectal Disease, 22, 471-472.
https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14929
[14] Nishimura, A., Kawahara, M., Kawachi, Y., Hasegawa, J., Makino, S., Kitami, C., Nakano, T., Otani, T., Nemoto, M., Hattori, S. and Nikkuni, K. (2022) Totally Laparoscopic Resection of Right-Sided Colon Cancer Using Transvaginal Specimen Extraction with a 10-mm-Long Abdominal Incision. Tech-niques in Coloproctology, 26, 755-760.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-022-02636-7
[15] Wolthuis, A.M., Fieuws, S., Van Den Bosch, A., de Buck van Overstraeten, A. and D’Hoore, A. (2015) Randomized Clinical Trial of Laparoscopic Colectomy with or without Natu-ral-Orifice Specimen Extraction. British Journal of Surgery, 102, 630-637.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9757
[16] Kudsi, O.Y., Gokcal, F., Bou-Ayash, N. and Chudner, A. (2021) Robotic Sigmoidectomy for Diverticulitis—Natural Orifice Extraction with Stapleless Hand-Sewn Intracorporeal Anastomosis. Colorectal Disease, 23, 1919-1923.
https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15624
[17] China NOSES Alliance (2017) Expert Consensus of Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery in Colorectal Neoplasm (2017 Edition). Chinese Journal of Colorectal Disease, 6, 266-272.
[18] Abu Gazala, M. and Wexner, S.D. (2017) Re-Appraisal and Consideration of Minimally Invasive Sur-gery in Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology Report, 5, 1-10.
[19] Guan, X., Hu, X., Jiang, Z., et al. (2022) Short-Term and Oncological Outcomes of Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery (NOSES) for Colorectal Cancer in China: A National Database Study of 5055 Patients. Science Bulletin, 67, 1331-1334.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2022.05.014
[20] Yagci, M.A., Kayaalp, C. and Novruzov, N.H. (2014) Intracorpo-real Mesenteric Division of the Colon Can Make the Specimen More Suitable for Natural Orifice Extraction. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques, 24, 484-486.
https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2014.0116
[21] Nishimura, A., Kawahara, M., Honda, K., et al. (2013) Totally Laparo-scopic Anterior Resection with Transvaginal Assistance and Transvaginal Specimen Extraction: A Technique for Natural Orifice Surgery Combined with Reduced- Port Surgery. Surgical Endoscopy, 27, 4734-4740.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3120-3
[22] Zhao, Q., Wu, L., Yang, F., Han, S. and Xing, N. (2023) Appli-cation of Transvaginal Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery in Urological Surgery. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques, 33, 231-235.
https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2022.0369
[23] China Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery Alliance (2019) Consensus of Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery in Gastric Cancer (2019). Chinese Journal of Gastrointesti-nal Surgery, 22, 711-714.
[24] Feng, X., Morandi, A., Boehne, M., et al. (2015) 3-Dimensional (3D) Laparoscopy Im-proves Operating Time in Small Spaces without Impact on Hemodynamics and Psychomental Stress Parameters of the Surgeon. Surgical Endoscopy, 29, 1231-1239.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4083-3
[25] Tsarkov, P.V., Efetov, S.K., Tulina, I.A., Kitsenko, Y.E., Picciariello, A., Kim, V.D. and Solodovnikova, A.K. (2019) Robotic Trans-vaginal Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Sigmoidectomy with Extended D3 Lymph Node Dissection for Cancer—A Video Vignette. Colorectal Disease, 21, 732-733.
https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14633
[26] Guan, X., Liu, Z., Lon-go, A., et al. (2019) International Consensus on Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery (NOSES) for Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology Report, 7, 24-31.
https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/goy055
[27] Sparreboom, C.L., van Groningen, J.T., Lingsma, H.F., et al. (2018) Different Risk Factors for Early and Late Colorectal Anastomotic Leakage in a Nationwide Audit. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, 61, 1258-1266.
https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000001202
[28] Zhang, M., Lu, Z., Zheng, Z., et al. (2022) Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes between Totally Laparoscopic Right Colectomy and Laparoscopic-Assisted Right Colectomy: A Retrospective Study in a Single Institution on 300 Consecutive Patients. Surgical Endoscopy, 36, 176-184.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08252-6
[29] Zhang, M., Lu, Z., Hu, X., et al. (2022) Comparison of the Short-Term Outcomes between Intracorporeal Isoperistaltic and Antiperistaltic Totally Stapled Side-to-Side Anastomosis for Right Colectomy: A Retrospective Study on 214 Consecutive Patients. Surgery Open Science, 9, 7-12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sopen.2022.03.006
[30] Wang, S., Tang, J., Sun, W., Yao, H.Y. and Li, Z. (2022) The Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery Compared with Conventional Laparoscopy for Colorectal Cancer: A Me-ta-Analysis of Efficacy and Long-Term Oncological Outcomes. International Journal of Surgery, 97, 106196.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106196
[31] Zhang, M., Hu, X., Guan, X., et al. (2022) Surgical Outcomes and Sexual Function after Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Surgery with Transvaginal versus Conventional Specimen Extraction: A Retrospective Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study. International Journal of Surgery, 104, Article ID: 106787.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106787
[32] Scarborough, J.E., Mantyh, C.R., Sun, Z., et al. (2015) Combined Mechanical and Oral Antibiotic Bowel Preparation Reduces Incisional Surgical Site Infection and Anastomotic Leak Rates after Elective Colorectal Resection: An Analysis of Colectomy—Targeted ACS NSQIP. Annals of Surgery, 262, 331-337.
https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001041
[33] Taylor, J.S., Marten, C.A., Munsell, M.F., et al. (2017) The DISINFECT Initiative: Decreasing the Incidence of Surgical INFECTions in Gynecologic Oncology. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 24, 362-368.
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5517-4
[34] Madrid, E., Urrútia, G., Roqué i Figuls, M., et al. (2016) Active Body Surface Warming Systems for Preventing Complications Caused by Inadvertent Perioperative Hypothermia in Adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 4, CD009016.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009016.pub2
[35] de Leede, E.M., van Leersum, N.J., Kroon, H.M., et al. (2018) Multicentre Randomized Clinical Trial of the Effect of Chewing Gum after Abdominal Surgery. British Journal of Surgery, 105, 820-828.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10828
[36] Fagarasanu, A., Alotaibi, G.S., Hrimiuc, R., et al. (2016) Role of Extended Thromboprophylaxis after Abdominal and Pelvic Surgery in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Re-view and Meta-Analysis. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 23, 1422- 1430.
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5127-1