Transvaginal Excision of Rectal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: A Safe Minimally Invasive Approach

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), the specific kit-positive mesenchymal tumors, are rarely found in the anorectum and account for 5% of all GIST cases. Surgical excision remains the main treatment for anorectal GIST. The available techniques include enucleation transanal excision or sometimes an abdominoperineal resection for large or low tumors. <b><i>Case Study:</i></b> We present a middle-aged female with a complaint of intermittent rectal pain for 1 year. Diagnostic workup detected a mass in the rectovaginal septum. A transvaginal excision was performed. Final histopathology showed rectal GIST. On regular follow-up visits, there was no detectable recurrence, and her anal pain disappeared completely. <b><i>Discussion:</i></b> Colorectal GIST accounts for only 0.1% of all colorectal tumors; this infrequency has led to a controversy in its diagnosis and management. Nevertheless, surgery remains a cornerstone element in the management of rectal GISTs. Different resection methods have been described in the literature, ranging from less-invasive approach such as transanal excision to a more radical one like an abdominoperineal resection. As there is no standard approach, choosing which one to perform depends on the tumor size, its location, and the surgeon’s preference. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Transvaginal excision could be considered a safe minimally invasive approach for low-lying rectal GISTs.

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

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.