scholarly journals Short-Term Assessment of Intersphincteric Resection in Low Rectal Cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 819-825
Author(s):  
ISMAIEL A. MOURAD, M.D.; HISHAM A. EL-HOSSIENY, M.D. ◽  
ABD EL-HAMID H. EZZAT, M.D.; IHAB S. HUSSEIN, M.D. ◽  
MOHAMMAD TAHER FOUAD, M.D.; RASHA MAHMOUD ALLAM, M.D.
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Short Term

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.

Intersphincteric resection and hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer: Short-term outcomes in the Indian setting

2015 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vishwas D. Pai ◽  
Ashwin De Souza ◽  
Prachi Patil ◽  
Reena Engineer ◽  
Supreeta Arya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Coloanal Anastomosis ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Indian Setting

Robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: technique and short-term outcome for 29 consecutive patients

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 2987-2992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quor M. Leong ◽  
Dong N. Son ◽  
Jae S. Cho ◽  
Se J. Baek ◽  
Jung M. Kwak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Short Term Outcome

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document