Systematic review of outcomes after intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer

2012 ◽  
Vol 99 (5) ◽  
pp. 603-612 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. T. Martin ◽  
H. M. Heneghan ◽  
D. C. Winter
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer

Intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: a systematic review

Surgery Today ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (8) ◽  
pp. 838-847 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshito Akagi ◽  
Tetsushi Kinugasa ◽  
Kazuo Shirouzu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Very Low Rectal Cancer

scholarly journals Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety Between da Vinci Robotic and Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Zhang ◽  
Xingshun Qi ◽  
Fangfang Yi ◽  
Rongrong Cao ◽  
Guangrong Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Da Vinci ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Alternative Choice ◽  
Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection

Background and Aims: The intersphincteric resection (ISR) is beneficial for saving patients' anus to a large extent and restoring original bowel continuity. Laparoscopic ISR (L-ISR) has its drawbacks, such as two-dimensional images, low motion flexibility, and unstable lens. Recently, da Vinci robotic ISR (R-ISR) is increasingly used worldwide. The purpose of this article is to compare the feasibility, safety, oncological outcomes, and clinical efficacy of R-ISR vs. L-ISR for low rectal cancer.Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched to identify comparative studies of R-ISR vs. L-ISR. Demographic, clinical, and outcome data were extracted. Mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with their corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.Results: Five studies were included. In total, 510 patients were included, of whom 273 underwent R-ISR and 237 L-ISR. Compared with L-ISR, R-ISR has significantly lower estimated intraoperative blood loss (MD = −23.31, 95% CI [−41.98, −4.64], P = 0.01), longer operative time (MD = 51.77, 95% CI [25.68, 77.86], P = 0.0001), hospitalization days (MD = −1.52, 95% CI [−2.10, 0.94], P < 0.00001), and postoperative urinary complications (RR = 0.36, 95% CI [0.16, 0.82], P = 0.02).Conclusions: The potential benefits of R-ISR are considered as a safe and feasible alternative choice for the treatment of low rectal tumors.

scholarly journals Survival and functional and oncological outcomes following intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: short-term results

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 1617-1625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Călin Molnar ◽  
Butiurca Vlad-Olimpiu ◽  
Botoncea Marian ◽  
Togănel Cornelia ◽  
Gurzu Simona
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Study Patient ◽  
Reference Ranges ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Wexner Score ◽  
Oncological Outcomes

Objective This study was performed to evaluate the 1-year survival rate and functional outcomes of 20 patients who underwent intersphincteric resection (ISR) for low rectal cancer. Methods Twenty patients who underwent ISR for low rectal cancer were followed up for 1 year. Complications, functional outcomes objectified by the Wexner score, and oncological outcomes were assessed. Results The short-term survival rate was 100%. The median Wexner score was ≤10 in all patients at 12 months after surgery. Signs of local recurrence were absent, and antigen levels remained within the reference ranges 1 year postoperatively. Conclusions ISR is a feasible alternative in highly selected patients who primarily refuse a colostomy bag and present with type II or III tumors. In the present study, patient-reported continence was satisfactory, and the absence of a colostomy bag increased patients’ quality of life. The oncological outcomes were satisfactory at 1 year postoperatively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document