Resection of the rectum and total excision of the internal anal sphincter with smooth muscle plasty and colonic pouch for treatment of ultralow rectal carcinoma

Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate anus-sparing technique for low rectal cancer and is considered an oncologically safe alternative to abdominoperineal resection. The application of the robotic approach to ISR (RISR) has been described by few specialized surgical teams with several differences regarding approach and technique. This review aims to discuss the technical aspects of RISR by evaluating point by point each surgical controversy. Moreover, a systematic review was performed to report the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of RISR. Postoperative morbidities after RISR are acceptable. RISR allows adequate surgical margins and adequate oncological outcomes. RISR may result in severe bowel and genitourinary dysfunction affecting the quality of life in a portion of patients.

Anus-Preserving Surgery in Advanced Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: A Perspective on Oncological Safety of Intersphincteric Resection

The surgical management of low-lying rectal cancer, within 5 cm from the anal verge (AV), is challenging due to the possibility, or not, to preserve the anus with its sphincter muscles maintaining oncological safety. The standardization of total mesorectal excision, the adoption of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the implementation of rectal magnetic resonance imaging, and the evolution of mechanical staplers have increased the rate of anus-preserving surgeries. Moreover, extensive anatomy and physiology studies have increased the understanding of the complexity of the deep pelvis. Intersphincteric resection (ISR) was introduced nearly three decades ago as the ultimate anus-preserving surgery. The definition and indication of ISR have changed over time. The adoption of the robotic platform provides excellent perioperative results with no differences in oncological outcomes. Pushing the boundaries of anus-preserving surgeries has risen doubts on oncological safety in order to preserve function. This review critically discusses the oncological safety of ISR by evaluating the anatomical characteristics of the deep pelvis, the clinical indications, the role of distal and circumferential resection margins, the role of the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the outcomes between surgical approaches (open, laparoscopic, and robotic), the comparison with abdominoperineal resection, the risk factors for oncological outcomes and local recurrence, the patterns of local recurrences after ISR, considerations on functional outcomes after ISR, and learning curve and surgical education on ISR.

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: the risk is functional rather than oncological. A 25-year experience from Bordeaux

AIM

There are few data evaluating the long-term outcomes of intersphincteric resection (ISR), especially the impact of inclusion of more juxtapositioned and intra-anal tumours on oncological and functional outcomes. We compared the oncological and functional results of patients treated by total mesorectal excision and ISR for low rectal cancer over a 25-year period.

METHOD

This is a retrospective study from a single institution evaluating results of ISR over three periods: 1990-1998, 1999-2006 and 2007-2014. Patients treated by partial or total ISR, with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, for low rectal cancer (≤ 6 cm from the anal verge) were included. We compared postoperative morbidity, quality of surgery and oncological and functional outcomes in the time periods studied.

RESULTS

Of 813 patients operated on for low rectal cancer, 303 had ISR. Tumour stage did not differ; however, the distance of the tumour from the anorectal junction decreased from 1 to 0 cm (P < 0.001) and the distal resection margin shortened from 25 to 10 mm (P < 0.001) from 1990 to 2014. The postoperative morbidity and quality of surgery did not change significantly over time. The 5-year local recurrence (4.3% vs 5.9% vs 3.5%; P = 0.741) and disease-free survival (72% vs 71% vs 75%; P = 0.918) did not differ between the three time periods. Functional results improved during the last period; however, overall 42% of patients experienced major bowel dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

Pushing the envelope of sphincter-saving resection in ultra-low rectal cancer reaching or invading the anal sphincter did not compromise oncological and functional outcomes. The main limitation of the ISR procedure appears to be functional rather than oncological, suggesting that bowel rehabilitation programmes should be developed.

Latest Advances in Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer

Background

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been a preferable alternative to abdominoperineal resection (APR) for anal preservation in patients with low rectal cancer. Laparoscopic ISR and robotic ISR have been widely used with the proposal of 2 cm or even 1 cm rule of distal free margin and the development of minimally invasive technology. The aim of this review was to describe the newest advancements of ISR.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review was performed to identify studies on ISR techniques, preoperative chemoradiotherapy (PCRT), complications, oncological outcomes, and functional outcomes and thereby to summarize relevant information and controversies involved in ISR.

Results

Although PCRT is employed to avoid positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) and decrease local recurrence, it tends to engender damage of anorectal function and patients' quality of life (QoL). Common complications after ISR include anastomotic leakage (AL), anastomotic stricture (AS), urinary retention, fistula, pelvic sepsis, and prolapse. CRM involvement is the most important predictor for local recurrence. Preoperative assessment and particularly rectal endosonography are essential for selecting suitable patients. Anal dysfunction is associated with age, PCRT, location and growth of anastomotic stoma, tumour stage, and resection of internal sphincter.

Conclusions

The ISR technique seems feasible for selected patients with low rectal cancer. However, the postoperative QoL as a result of functional disorder should be fully discussed with patients before surgery.

Intersphincteric Resection Pushing the Envelope for Sphincter Preservation

During the last 15 years, a significant evolution has emerged in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer and restoration of bowel continuity has been one of the main goals. For many years the treatment of distal rectal cancer would necessarily require an abdominoperineal resection and end colostomy. The surgical procedure of intersphincteric resection has been proposed to offer sphincter preservation in patients with low rectal cancer and has been legitimized if executed according to adequate oncologic criteria. This article will discuss the best indications, technical aspects, functional, and oncological outcomes of intersphicteric resection in the management of rectal cancer.

Intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: A review of the updated literature

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) has rapidly increased worldwide including laparoscopic surgery. However, there are some concerns for the definition of ISR, surgical technique, oncological outcome, anal function, and quality of life (QoL). The aim of the present study is to evaluate those issues. A review of this surgical technique was carried out by searching English language literature of the PubMed online database and appropriate articles were identified. With regard to open‐ISR, the morbidity rate ranged from 7.5% to 38.3%, with lower mortality rates. Local recurrence rates varied widely from 0% to 22.7%, with a mean follow‐up duration of 40–94 months. Disease‐free and overall 5‐year survival rates were 68–86% and 76–97%, respectively. Those outcomes were equivalent to laparoscopic‐ISR. Surgical and oncological outcomes of ISR were generally acceptable. However, accurate evaluation of anal function and QoL was difficult because of a lack of standard assessment of various patient‐related factors. The surgical and oncological outcomes after ISR seem to be acceptable. The ISR technique seems to be valid as an alternative to abdominoperineal resection in selected patients with a very low rectal cancer. However, both necessity for ISR and expectations of QoL impairment as a result of functional disorder should be fully discussed with patients before surgery.

Long-term results of extended intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: a retrospective study

Background

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) has become an increasingly popular optional surgical tool for the treatment of very low rectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term oncological and functional outcomes of intersphincteric resection for T2 and T3 rectal cancer situated below 4 cm from the anal verge.

Methods

A total of 62 consecutive patients with very low rectal cancer who underwent ISR from 2001 to 2010 were classified into standard ISR for T2 lesions (Group I, n = 24) and extended ISR for T3 lesions (Group II, n = 38).

Results

The 5-year overall survival rates were 95.8 % for group I and 94.7 % for group II. The 5-year recurrence-free survival rates were 87.5 % for group I and 86.8 % for group II. Bowel functions were evaluated at the 12^th and 24^th months after ileostomy closure in both groups. The frequency of bowel evacuation was higher in patients who underwent extended ISR than in those who underwent standard ISR at the 12^th month (p < 0.05). However, at the 24^th month, the frequencies decreased in both groups, exhibiting no significant difference. In the comparison based on the Kirwan classification, group I showed better continence status than group II but no significant difference. The Wexner scores of both groups revealed that the average score was 7.33 ± 2.8 in group I and 8.18 ± 2.9 in group II at the 12^th month, and at the 24^th month, the average score was 5.21 ± 1.7 in group I and 5.82 ± 1.9 in group II. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups.

Conclusions

Extended ISR with quadrant resection of the upper external sphincter achieved good post-operative continence status, OS and RFS. Extended ISR can thus be an alternative to abdominoperineal resection for very low rectal cancer without compromising the chance of cure and improving quality of life.

The antegrade continence enema procedure and total anorectal reconstruction

Patients may present with anal incontinence (AI) following repair of a congenital anorectal anomaly years previously, or require total anorectal reconstruction (TAR) following radical rectal extirpation, most commonly for rectal cancer. Others may require removal of their colostomy following sphincter excision for Fournier's gangrene, or in cases of severe perineal trauma. Most of the data pertaining to antegrade continence enema (the ACE or Malone procedure) comes from the pediatric literature in the management of children with AI, but also with supervening chronic constipation, where the quality of life and compliance with this technique appears superior to retrograde colonic washouts. Total anorectal reconstruction requires an anatomical or physical supplement to the performance of a perineal colostomy, which may include an extrinsic muscle interposition (which may or may not be 'dynamized'), construction of a neorectal reservoir, implantation of an incremental artificial bowel sphincter or creation of a terminal, smooth-muscle neosphincter. The advantages and disadvantages of these techniques and their outcome are presented here.

Systematic review of anastomotic leakage rate according to an international grading system following anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

A generally acceptable definition and a severity grading system for anastomotic leakages (ALs) following rectal resection were not available until 2010, when the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer (ISGRC) proposed a definition and a grading system for AL.

METHODS

A search for published data was performed using the MEDLINE database (2000 to December 5, 2012) to perform a systematic review of the studies that described AL, grade AL according to the grading system, pool data, and determine the average rate of AL for each grade after anterior resection (AR) for rectal cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 930 abstracts were retrieved; 40 articles on AR, 25 articles on low AR (LAR), and 5 articles on ultralow AR (ULAR) were included in the review and analysis. The pooled overall AL rate of AR was 8.58% (2,085/24,288); the rate of the asymptomatic leakage (Grade A) was 2.57%, that of AL that required active intervention without relaparotomy (Grade B) was 2.37%, and that of AL that required relaparotomy (Grade C) was 5.40%. The pooled rate of AL that required relaparotomy was higher in AR (5.40%) than in LAR (4.70%) and in ULAR (1.81%), which could be attributed to the higher rate of protective defunctioning stoma in LAR (40.72%) and ULAR (63.44%) compared with that in AR (30.11%).

CONCLUSIONS

The new grading system is simple that the ALs of each grade can be easily extracted from past publications, therefore likely to be accepted and applied in future studies.

Long-term results of intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to investigate the long-term therapeutic outcome of intersphincteric resection (ISR) as the treatment of ultra-low rectal cancer.

METHODS

During January 2004 and October 2010, ISR was performed in 60 patients with ultra-low rectal cancer and their survival, local recurrence, and functional outcome were evaluated retrospectively.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients with tumors at a median distance of 42 (range 30-50) mm from the anal verge underwent ISR. Three cases developed anastomotic leakage and two cases developed anastomotic stenosis postoperatively. After a median follow-up of 49 (range 18-90) months, local and distant recurrence occurred in six and four patients, respectively. Five-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 90.0% and 83.3%. Among them, the functional results of 53 patients suggested the mean stool frequency were 3.8 ± 1.3 (range 3-10) per 24 hr. According to Kirwan classification, good continence was shown in 73.6% of the patients.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary study indicated that ISR might be a candidate technique in treating patients with ultra-low rectal cancer and achieved satisfactory long-term results in functional and oncologic respects.

Anorectal function after partial intersphincteric resection in ultra-low rectal cancer

AIM

To investigate the feasibility and efficacy of intersphincteric resection (ISR), in terms of postoperative anorectal function, for ultra-low rectal cancer in mainland China.

METHOD

A total of 43 patients who consecutively underwent curative partial ISR for ultra-low rectal cancer between 2006 and 2009 were enrolled in the study. Defaecatory function was assessed, using detailed questionnaires, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. The Wexner score was used to assess faecal continence, and anal manometry studies were performed to analyse anal sphincter function.

RESULTS

Overall defaecatory function was assessed as being satisfactory in 41 of 43 patients. Twelve months after surgery, the mean Wexner score was 4.0 ± 3.6. Anal manometry studies showed a significant change at 3 months and further, gradual, improvement over the following year. During the postoperative period, maximum squeeze pressure reached a normal value of 174.1 ± 19.5 mmHg (P = 0.041) by 6 months and resting pressure was 42.4 ± 5.6 mmHg by 12 months, which was close to the preoperative level (P = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

Because of the satisfactory recovery of defaecatory function and good oncological results, partial ISR may be recommended as an effective sphincter-preserving operation for patients with ultra-low rectal cancer.

Intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: a systematic review

Radical surgical treatment for very low rectal cancer near the anus has generally involved abdominoperineal resection. Various sphincter-saving operations have been developed for such tumors to optimize the patients' postoperative quality of life. Current protocols focus on intersphincteric resection (ISR), which differs from conventional hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis (CAA) after low anterior resection. However, the efficacy of ISR remains unclear. The surgical, oncologic, and functional outcomes after intersphincteric resection (ISR) were reviewed. This review of the current literature was conducted by searching the PubMed online database. Articles focusing specifically on conventional hand-sewn CAA were excluded from this study. The mean mortality rate is <2 %, and the mean morbidity rate ranges from 7.7 to 38.3 %. The mean local recurrence rate varies widely from 0 to 22.7 %, with a mean follow-up duration of 40-94 months. The mean disease-free and overall 5-year survival rates are 69-86 and 79-97 months, respectively. Functional outcomes are generally acceptable, but accurate evaluation is extremely difficult due to the absence of unified appraisal methods. ISR appears surgically, oncologically and functionally acceptable. However, more experience and better understanding of the oncology, anal physiology, and pelvic anatomy are necessary to achieve successful outcomes without complications, and to improve patient survival.

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs open surgery approach

AIM

Laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery has been investigated for rectal cancer but not for tumours of the lower third. We evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer.

METHOD

From 1990 to 2007, patients with rectal tumour below 6 cm from the anal verge and treated by open or laparoscopic curative intersphincteric resection were included in a retrospective comparative study. Surgery included total mesorectal excision with internal sphincter excision and protected low coloanal anastomosis. Neoadjuvant treatment was given to patients with T3 or N+ tumours. Recurrence and survival were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the Logrank test. Function was assessed using the Wexner continence score.

RESULTS

Intersphincteric resection was performed in 175 patients with low rectal cancer: 110 had laparoscopy and 65 had open surgery. The two groups were similar according to age, sex, body mass index, ASA score, tumour stage and preoperative radiotherapy. Postoperative mortality (zero) and morbidity (23%vs 28%; P = 0.410) were similar in both groups. There was no difference in 5-year local recurrence (5%vs 2%; P = 0.349) and 5-year disease-free survival (70%vs 71%; P = 0.862). Function and continence scores (11 vs 12; P = 0.675) were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Intersphincteric resection did not alter long-term tumour control of low rectal cancer. The safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic approach for intersphincteric resection are suggested by a similar short- and long-term outcome as obtained by open surgery.

How low is low? Evolving approaches to sphincter-sparing resection techniques

Although advances in rectal cancer staging may ultimately be accurate enough to reliably exclude disease outside the rectal wall (thereby allowing local approaches to be more widely and safely applied) and advances in the use of neoadjuvant chemo- and radiation therapy may ultimately produce more "complete responders" that can be accurately identified and spared surgery altogether, as it stands, radical resection forms the basis of curative treatment for rectal cancer. However, the concepts that guide the surgeon in choosing the optimal approach in radical resection are changing. In the past, the decision as to how to proceed surgically with radical resection was based primarily on the level of the tumor above the anal verge or anorectal ring. The issue was primarily "How low is the tumor?" and "Is the distal margin safe?" A more modern approach focuses attention on achieving a negative circumferential margin despite what historically may seem to be a very minimal distal margin, the current issue is not "How low is the tumor?" so much as it is "How deep does the tumor go?". This shift in focus has been a major impetus in the evolution of sphincter sparing resection techniques.

Review of histopathological and molecular prognostic features in colorectal cancer

Prediction of prognosis in colorectal cancer is vital for the choice of therapeutic options. Histopathological factors remain paramount in this respect. Factors such as tumor size, histological type and subtype, presence of signet ring morphology and the degree of differentiation as well as the presence of lymphovascular invasion and lymph node involvement are well known factors that influence outcome. Our understanding of these factors has improved in the past few years with factors such as tumor budding, lymphocytic infiltration being recognized as important. Likewise the prognostic significance of resection margins, particularly circumferential margins has been appreciated in the last two decades. A number of molecular and genetic markers such as KRAS, BRAF and microsatellite instability are also important and correlate with histological features in some patients. This review summarizes our current understanding of the main histopathological factors that affect prognosis of colorectal cancer.

Sphincter-sparing resection for rectal cancer

Although there is still a place for abdominoperineal resection in the treatment of rectal cancer, the state of the art is sphincter-preserving resection. Even for the lowest of rectal cancers, using a combination of neoadjuvant chemo/radiation, total mesorectal excision, and intersphincteric proctectomy and colonic J-pouch to anal anastomosis, sphincter preservation can be achieved for most patients. The key concept in pushing sphincter preservation forward has been the realization that the deep, circumferential, or lateral margin is all-important. Unless the rectal tumor involves the external sphincter muscle, there is no oncologic need to remove it, and following resection of the tumor, gastrointestinal tract continuity can be restored.

Use of smooth muscle plasty after intersphincteric rectal resection to replace a partially resected internal anal sphincter: long-term follow-up

PURPOSE

Patients with very low rectal cancer were treated by intersphincteric rectal resection employing partial internal anal sphincter resection. They then underwent smooth muscle plasty to restore internal anal sphincter function. We assessed the functional and oncological outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were selected if their biopsies revealed well-differentiated or moderately well-differentiated very low rectal tumors with distal tumor margins that permitted preservation of part of the internal anal sphincter. Functional results after closing the loop ileostomy were assessed by use of a standardized questionnaire. Continence was evaluated by use of the Kirwan score.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients with T2 to T3 very low rectal carcinomas underwent intersphincteric rectal resection and smooth muscle plasty that extended into the anal canal. All received neoadjuvant treatment. Postoperative morbidity was 38.3%. There were 46 R0 resections based on frozen section analysis; one patient achieved an R0 resection after reexcision of a positive distal margin on the frozen section. The median follow-up period was 67.2 months. One patient had local recurrence. The five-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 85% and 82%, respectively. Six months, one year, and two years after intersphincteric rectal resection, 80%, 87%, and 89%, respectively, had good continence (Kirwan I and II). Evacuation difficulty was detected in two patients with colonic S-pouches.

CONCLUSION

Providing neodjuvant treatment and preserving at least half of the functional internal anal sphincter mass produces acceptable oncological and functional outcomes in patients undergoing intersphincteric rectal resection for very low rectal cancer. However, whether smooth muscle plasty further improves postoperative continence should be tested by further studies.

Long-term results of intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Intersphincteric resection has been performed as an alternative to abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term results after intersphincteric resection in terms of the morbidity, oncologic safety, and defecatory function.

METHODS

Between 1994 and 2006, 107 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer had curative intersphincteric resection, categorized as total, subtotal, or partial resection of the internal anal sphincter.

RESULTS

There were no mortalities. Neorectal mucosal prolapse in patients with total intersphincteric resection and coloanal anastomotic stenosis in patients with subtotal or partial intersphincteric resection were observed as characteristic late complications. The five-year disease-free survival rates classified according to the TNM stage were 100 percent for stage I, 83.5 percent for stage II, and 72.0 percent for stage III cases. The five-year cumulative local recurrence rate after intersphincteric resection was 2.5 percent. Defecatory function, which was evaluated by bowel movement in a 24-hour period, and continence after intersphincteric resection were objectively good. The results of the multivariate analysis revealed that age was the only factor associated with a risk of fecal incontinence.

CONCLUSION

Provided strict selection criteria are used, intersphincteric resection may be the optimal sphincter-preserving surgery for low rectal cancer.

Intersphincteric resection with partial removal of external anal sphincter for low rectal cancer

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) remains the standard procedure for rectal cancer located within 0.5 cm from dentate line (DL). In this study, we present a new type of restorative surgery: intersphincteric resection with partial removal of external anal sphincter (EAS) and anorectal reconstruction for-ultra low rectal cancer. Between March 2003 and May 2008 fifty patients (28 males, aged between 39 and 71) were operated on for ultra low rectal cancer uT2-3N0M0 with partial preservation of EAS and total anorectal reconstruction (smooth-muscle neosphincter and colonic pouch). A protective stoma was performed in all cases. Functional outcome and quality of life were recorded at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 months after stoma closure using Wexner score and FIQL respectively. Anal manometry, vectrum volumetry and myography data were taken as well. Results. Postoperative complications developed in 2 patients, but no secondary surgery was required. Carcinomas were staged as pT2 (n = 14) and pT3 (n = 36). The distal clearance was 2.00.4 (range 1.5-2.8) cm, lateral clearance was 0.80.3 (range 0.2-1.4) cm. After a median follow-up of 24 (range 2-61) months, 2 local recurrences were occurred and salvaged by APR. Contractive activity of saved elements of EAS improved with a course of time and squeezing anal pressure increased as well. Perfect functional outcome was achieved in 25 of 34 patients at 12 months after stoma closure, and all the patients were satisfied with procedure. Good functional results of suggested surgery seems to be an acceptable alternative to APR with permanent stoma in selected patients.

Extending the horizons of restorative rectal surgery: intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Radical resection of tumours of the distal rectum has generally entailed an abdominoperineal excision, but the recognition of shorter safe distal resection margins, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and the application of the technique of intersphincteric resection (ISR) have led to the prospect of restorative surgery for patients with distally situated tumours. The present study examines the indications, techniques and outcomes following ISR.

METHOD

A literature search was performed to identify studies reporting outcomes following ISR for low rectal cancer. The outcomes of interest included short-term adverse events, functional and manometric results, postoperative quality of life and oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies reflecting the experience of 13 units and 612 patients were included. Operative mortality following ISR was 1.6% (inter-unit range 0-5%) and anastomotic leak rate 10.5% (inter-unit range 0-48.4%). The pooled rate of local recurrence was 9.5% (range 0-31% between units) with an average 5-year survival of 81.5%. Most studies recorded a significant reduction in resting anal pressure but not squeeze pressure following surgery, but urgency was reported in up to 58.8% of patients. Functional outcomes and quality of life may be improved using colonic j-pouch reconstruction. The use of chemoradiotherapy can offer benefits in terms of oncologic result, but at the cost of worse functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Careful case selection and counselling is required if satisfactory results are to be achieved following ISR for low rectal cancers. In selected patients, however, the technique offers sphincter preserving surgery with acceptable oncologic and functional results.

Clinical outcome of intersphincteric resection for ultra-low rectal cancer

AIM: To analyze oncological outcome of intersphincteric resection (ISR) in ultra-low rectal cancer with intent to spare colostoma.

METHODS: From 1995 to 1998, patients with a non-fixed rectal adenocarcinoma (tumor stage T2) preserving the lower margin at 1-3 cm above the dentate line without distant metastasis was enrolled (period I). ISR was practiced in eight patients, and their postoperative follow-up was at least 5 years. In addition, from 1999 to 2003, another 10 patients having the same tumor location as period I underwent ISR (period II). Among those, 6 patients with T3-4-staged tumor received preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

RESULTS: All patients received ISR with curative intention and no postoperative mortality. In these case series at period I, local recurrence rate was 12.5% and metastasis rate 25.0%; the 5-year survival rate was 87.5% and disease-free survival rate 75.0%. There was no local recurrence or distant metastases in 10 patients with a median follow-up of 30 (range, 18-47) mo at period II.

CONCLUSION: As to ultra-low rectal cancer, intersphincteric resection could provide acceptable local control and cancer-related survival with no permanent stoma in early-staged tumor (tumor stage T2); moreover, preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy would make ISR feasible with surgical curative intent in more advanced tumors (tumor stages T3-4).