A comparison of the long-term anorectal function between laparoscopic intersphincteric resection and low anterior resection for low rectal cancer

Surgery Today ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (10) ◽  
pp. 921-927 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenji Kawada ◽  
Koya Hida ◽  
Suguru Hasegawa ◽  
Yoshiharu Sakai
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Anterior Resection ◽  
Low Anterior Resection ◽  
Anorectal Function ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection

scholarly journals Comparison between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving operations for ultra-low rectal cancer: a single institutional retrospective study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tadahiro Kojima ◽  
Hitoshi Hino ◽  
Akio Shiomi ◽  
Hiroyasu Kagawa ◽  
Yusuke Yamaoka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Anterior Resection ◽  
Low Anterior Resection ◽  
Multivariate Analyses ◽  
Anal Verge ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Robotic Assisted Surgery

Abstract Background Sphincter-preserving operations for ultra-low rectal cancer include low anterior resection and intersphincteric resection. In low anterior resection, the distal rectum is divided by a transabdominal approach, which is technically demanding. In intersphincteric resection, a perineal approach is performed. We aimed to evaluate whether robotic-assisted surgery is technically superior to laparoscopic surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer. The frequency of conducting low anterior resection by a specific procedure can indicate the technical superiority of that procedure for ultra-low rectal cancer. Thus, we compared the frequency of low anterior resection between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery in cases of sphincter-preserving operations. Methods We investigated 183 patients who underwent sphincter-preserving robotic-assisted or laparoscopic surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer (lower border within 5 cm of the anal verge) between April 2010 and March 2020. The frequency of low anterior resection was compared between laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgeries. The clinicopathological factors associated with an increase in performing low anterior resection were analyzed by multivariate analyses. Results Overall, 41 (22.4%) and 142 (77.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery, respectively. Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. Low anterior resection was performed significantly more frequently in robotic-assisted surgery (67.6%) than in laparoscopic surgery (48.8%) (p = 0.04). Multivariate analyses showed that tumor distance from the anal verge (p < 0.01) and robotic-assisted surgery (p = 0.02) were significantly associated with an increase in the performance of low anterior resection. The rate of postoperative complications or pathological results was similar between the groups. Conclusions Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic-assisted surgery significantly increased the frequency of low anterior resection in sphincter-preserving operations for ultra-low rectal cancer. Robotic-assisted surgery has technical superiority over laparoscopic surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer treatment.

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 &lt; 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.

Long-term functional results of low anterior resection following preoperative radiochemoterapy for rectal cancer

2000 ◽  
Vol 118 (4) ◽  
pp. A1028
Author(s):  
Salvatore Pucciarelli ◽  
Riccardo Marchesin ◽  
Paola Toppan ◽  
Carlo Schievano ◽  
Mario Lise
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Anterior Resection ◽  
Low Anterior Resection ◽  
Functional Results
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document