Clinical Efficacy of Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer Compared With Abdominoperineal Resection: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482110562
Author(s):  
Zijian He ◽  
Baifu Peng ◽  
Wenbin Chen ◽  
JiaDun Zhu ◽  
BaoQi Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Abdominoperineal Resection ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Anal Verge ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Soft Diet ◽  
Retrospective Comparison

Background In recent years, intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been increasingly used to replace abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the surgical treatment of ultra-low rectal cancer. Aim This study was to compare the clinical efficacy of ISR and APR. Methods Between 2012 and 2018, 74 consecutive patients with ultra-low rectal cancer underwent ISR or APR in our medical center. A retrospective comparison of these 2 procedures was performed. Results A total of 43 patients underwent ISR and 31 underwent APR were included in the study. No significant differences were found between 2 groups in gender, age, BMI, and ASA score. Intersphincteric resection group showed shorter operative time ( P = .02) and less blood loss ( P = .001). Hospital stays, time to soft diet, and postoperative 30-day complications were not significantly different between the 2 groups. R0 resection achieved 100% in both the groups. As for the long-term outcomes, the survival and recurrence rate were similar between 2 groups. Moreover, the LARS and Wexner score showed that the postoperative anal function after ISR were satisfactory. Conclusion This study suggested that ISR was feasible and safe for selected patients with ultra-low rectal cancer, with clinically superior outcomes in select patients (small tumors/further from the anal verge) and similar oncological outcomes to APR, and the anal functional outcomes after ISR were acceptable.

scholarly journals Clinical efficacy of intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer compared with abdominoperineal resection: a single-center retrospective study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baifu Peng ◽  
Zixin Wu ◽  
Zijian He ◽  
Guanwei Li ◽  
Jie Cao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Abdominoperineal Resection ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Anal Function ◽  
Soft Diet ◽  
Lars Score ◽  
Feasible Alternative ◽  
Hospital Stays

Abstract Purpose In recent years, intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been increasingly used to replace abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancer. This study was to compare the clinical efficacy of ISR and APR. Methods Between 2012 and 2018, 74 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer underwent ISR and APR in our medical centre. The outcomes were retrospectively studied and compared. Results A total of 43 patients underwent ISR and 31 underwent APR were included in the study. No significant differences were found between two groups in gender, age, BMI and ASA score. ISR group showed shorter operative time (P = 0.02) and less blood loss (P = 0.001). Hospital stays, time to soft diet, and postoperative thirty-day complications were not significantly different between the two groups. As for the long-term outcomes, the survival and recurrence rate were similar between two groups. Moreover, LARS score and Wexner score showed the anal function after ISR was generally satisfactory. Conclusion This study suggested that ISR may provide a feasible alternative to APR, with superior short-term outcomes, similar oncological outcomes and satisfactory postoperative anal function.

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.

Extended intersphincteric resection with quadrant resection of external sphincter after neoadjuvant mid-course chemoradiotherapy in the very low rectal cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14181-e14181
Author(s):  
Nahmgun Oh ◽  
Sanghwa Ko ◽  
Hyunsung Kim
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Anal Verge ◽  
External Sphincter ◽  
Postoperative Mortality ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Pelvic Cavity ◽  
Group I ◽  
Very Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
The Mean

e14181 Background: To evaluate the results of extended intersphincteric resection of T3 rectal cancer situated below 4cm from the anal verge, comparing the results of simple intersphincteric resection of T2 rectal cancer after mid-course chemoradiotherapy. Methods: Between 2000 Between 2000 and 2006, 67 patients with rectal cancer below 4cm from anal verge, underwent abdomino-intersphincteric resection reconstructed by inversion proctoplasty with a colonic J-pouch and diverting ileostomy. All patients received a total irradiation dose of 30 Gy with conventional fractions for 3 weeks. Capecitabine was administered 1000mg/m2 twice a day on 21 days during radiotherapy, followed curative surgery in a week without resting period. After preoperative radio-chemotherapy, patients with overt T2 lesion were 27 cases (40.3%) and received intersphincteric resection (Group I: simple intersphincteric resection), and patients with borderline cases or T3 lesion were 40 cases (59.7%) and received intersphincteric resection with quadrant resection of upper external sphincter and primary repair of the external sphincter as inversion proctoplasty (Group II: extended intersphincteric resection). Results: The mean patients age was 61.2 years. The mean location of cancer was at 3.2cm from anal verge (2-4cm). Anastomotic leakage was confirmed in 11 patients (16.4%). There was no postoperative mortality. The grade I, II of continence by Kirwan classification was 81.5%, 80.0% in Group I and II. Under 3 times stool frequency per day was 51.9%, 62.5% in Group I and II. Two patients (3.0%) experienced locoregional recurrence of pelvic cavity. 5-year overall survival rate was 83.6%. Conclusions: Simple and extended intersphincteric resection is seemed to be a safe and functionally acceptable procedure. And, neoadjuvant mid-course chemoradiotherapy using oral capecitabine 2,000 mg/m2/day on 21 days during 2 Gy radiation of each 15 weekdays is seemed to be a tolerable and effective modality, in patients with very low rectal cancer.

scholarly journals Comparation of Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection and Abdominoperineal Resection for Ultra-Low Rectal Cancer Patients - a Retrospective Analysis, and a Meta-analysis of Oncology Outcome

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xianwei Mo ◽  
Wentao Wang ◽  
Haiquan Qin ◽  
Hao Lai ◽  
Zigao Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Abdominoperineal Resection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection

Abstract Purpose The aim of the study is to evaluate the surgical and oncology outcomes between laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection (LISR) and laparoscopic-assisted Abdominoperineal Resection (LARC) for ultra-low rectal cancer patients by using a retrospective analysis, and a meta-analysis of the literature was carried out to further validate the oncology outcome. Patients and methods: Between April 2014 and December 2015, a total of 38 rectal cancer patients who underwent LISR and 41 LARC patients were enrolled in this study. The comparison between the groups was based on clinicopathological characteristics and surgical outcomes. Meta-analysis of published studies, exploring oncology outcome of between LISR and LARC, was carried out using STATA 12.0 software. Results Operating time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complication rates was similar between LISR group and LARC group; Patients undergoing LISR also had a similarly 5-year local recurrence and overall survival rate with LAPR. Meta-analysis showed that five studies, which included a total of 791 patients were final involved for this analysis. Comparing APR, ISR patients obtain similarly 5-years recurrence rate and 5-years survival rate. Conclusion This study suggests that LISR is as technically feasible, safe, and effective as LARC for treating patients with low rectal cancer. Additional high-powered randomized trials are needed to determine whether LISR truly offers any advantages.

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.

Intersphincteric Resection Versus Abdominoperineal Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 155335062091841
Author(s):  
Baifu Peng ◽  
Jiabao Lu ◽  
Zixin Wu ◽  
Guanwei Li ◽  
Fang Wei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Abdominoperineal Resection ◽  
Postoperative Morbidity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Safe Alternative ◽  
Permanent Colostomy ◽  
Oncological Outcomes

Background. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) has been the standard surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer for a century. In recent years, intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been increasingly used to avoid the permanent colostomy. Up to now, there is no relevant meta-analysis comparing the clinical efficacy of ISR and APR. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of these 2 procedures. Methods. A comprehensive search of online databases was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to obtain comparative studies of ISR and APR. Then the data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were extracted and analyzed. Results. A total of 12 studies covering 2438 patients were included. No significant differences were found between ISR and APR in gender, body mass index, distance from tumor to anal edge, operative time, and blood loss. In addition, hospital stay (weighted mean differences = −2.98 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −3.54 to −2.43; P < .00001) and postoperative morbidity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.99; P = .04) were significantly lower in ISR group compared with APR group. However, patients who underwent ISR showed lower pathological T-stage (T3T4%, OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.28 to 0.86; P = .01) and lymph node metastasis rate (OR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.59 to 1.01; P = .06) compared with those who underwent APR. Moreover, oncological outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. Conclusion. ISR may provide a safe alternative to APR, with shorter hospital stays, lower postoperative morbidity, and similar oncological outcomes. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document