Prospective randomized trial for determination of optimum size of side limb in low anterior resection with side-to-end anastomosis for rectal carcinoma

Reconstructive techniques following low anterior resection for carcinoma of the rectum

INTRODUCTION

Multiple reconstructive techniques have been described for reconstruction after a low anterior resection for carcinoma rectum. Colonic J pouch (CJP), Side to end anastomosis (SEA), transverse coloplasty pouch (TCP) and Straight Colo-rectal/anal anastomosis were the most widely studied.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane data base were searched for randomized, non-randomized studies and systematic reviews from inception of the databases till July 31st, 2023.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Considerable heterogeneity existed among different study findings. Reservoir techniques, including CJP, SEA, and TCP, exhibited reduced stool frequency, decreased urgency, and improved continence status compared to SCA, particularly in the short term. CJP maintained this advantage into the intermediate term. Other functional outcomes were similar among the techniques. However, these functional improvements did not translate into enhanced Quality of Life (QoL). TCP was associated with an elevated risk of anastomotic leaks. Other surgical outcomes remained comparable across all four techniques. Sexual outcomes also exhibited no significant variation. Some studies suggested that the size of the side limb in CJP or SEA may not significantly impact functional outcomes, implying that neorectum capacity may not be the primary determinant of improved function. The precise physiological mechanism underlying these findings remains unknown.

CONCLUSIONS

In the short and intermediate terms, reservoir techniques demonstrated superior functional outcomes, but long-term performance was comparable among all techniques. Notably, enhanced functional outcomes did not translate to improved Quality of Life. TCP, while effective, is linked to an increased risk of anastomotic complications, necessitating cautious utilization.

Coloanal Anastomosis

The furthest extent of restorative proctectomy involves a colon to anal anastomosis in the deep pelvis. While the anastomosis can be challenging, it can allow the patient to avoid a permanent ostomy. Patient and surgeon preparation can improve patient outcomes. This article will describe the options, technical challenges, and anecdotal tips for coloanal anastomosis.

Ileocolonic anastomosis-comparison of different surgical techniques: A single-center study

Right hemicolectomy (RH) is a common procedure for both benign and malignant colic disease. Different anastomotic types are performed during this procedure. To assess the association between anastomotic type and postoperative complications (PC) in patients undergoing RH. Retrospective analysis of medical records of 72 patients (39 female and 33 male), aged 24 to 93, undergoing open RH in the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery. Data regarding anastomotic type [end-to-end anastomosis, side-to-side (SSA), end-to-side anastomosis, and side-to-end anastomosis (SEA)], and different clinical factors were collected. There were 21 (29%) end-to-end anastomosis, 25 (35%) SSA, 15 (21%) end-to-side anastomosis, and 11 (15%) SEA in the analyzed group. Adenocarcinoma G2 was the most frequent indication for RH - 30 (42%). Total duration of hospitalization (in days) was the longest (14, 26) after SEA and the shortest (12, 68) after SSA. PC were noted in 17(24%) patients. Wound infection was the most common complication noted in 15(21%) patients. The overall anastomotic leak rate was 7% (5/72). PC were the most frequent after SEA noted in 64% (7/11) including abdominal bleeding and bowel perforation. The overall reoperations rate was 6% (4/72). The overall mortality rate was 4% (3/72). SEA was associated with the highest incidence of postoperative complication however based on this and other studies there are no satisfying conclusions regarding the best choice of anastomosis.

The Colorectal Anastomosis: A Timeless Challenge

Colorectal anastomosis is a sophisticated problem that demands an elaborate discussion and an elegant solution. "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana, Life of Reason , 1905.

Anastomotic Technique-How to Optimize Success and Minimize Leak Rates

Determining when to perform a bowel anastomosis and whether to divert can be difficult, as an anastomosis made in a high-risk patient or setting has potential for disastrous consequences. While the surgeon has limited control over patient-specific characteristics, the surgeon can control the technique used for creating anastomoses. Protecting and ensuring a vigorous blood supply is fundamental, as is mobilizing bowel completely, and employing adjunctive techniques to attain reach without tension. There are numerous ways to create anastomoses, with variations on the segment and configuration of bowel used, as well as the materials used and surgical approach. Despite numerous studies on the optimal techniques for anastomoses, no one method has prevailed. Without clear evidence on the best anastomotic technique, surgeons should focus on adhering to good technique and being comfortable with several configurations for a variety of conditions.

Safety and efficacy of side-to-end anastomosis versus colonic J-pouch anastomosis in sphincter-preserving resections: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The application of side-to-end anastomosis (SEA) in sphincter-preserving resection (SPR) is controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of SEA with colonic J-pouch (CJP) anastomosis, which had been proven effective in improving postoperative bowel function.

Methods

The protocol was registered in PROSPERO under number CRD42020206764. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the safety or efficacy of SEA in comparison with CJP anastomosis. The outcomes included the pooled risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variables and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous variables. All outcomes were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) by STATA software (Stata 14, Stata Corporation, TX, USA).

Results

A total of 864 patients from 10 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Patients undergoing SEA had a higher defecation frequency at 12 months after SPR (WMD = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.14–0.26; P < 0.01) than those undergoing CJP anastomosis with low heterogeneity (I² = 0%, P = 0.54) and a lower incidence of incomplete defecation at 3 months after surgery (RR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09–0.86; P = 0.03). A shorter operating time (WMD = − 17.65; 95% CI, − 23.28 to − 12.02; P < 0.01) was also observed in the SEA group without significant heterogeneity (I² = 0%, P = 0.54). A higher anorectal resting pressure (WMD = 6.25; 95% CI, 0.17–12.32; P = 0.04) was found in the SEA group but the heterogeneity was high (I² = 84.5%, P = 0.84). No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of efficacy outcomes including defecation frequency, the incidence of urgency, incomplete defecation, the use of pads, enema, medications, anorectal squeeze pressure and maximum rectal volume, or safety outcomes including operating time, blood loss, the use of protective stoma, postoperative complications, clinical outcomes, and oncological outcomes.

Conclusions

The present evidence suggests that SEA is an effective anastomotic strategy to achieve similar postoperative bowel function without increasing the risk of complications compared with CJP anastomosis. The advantages of SEA include a shorter operating time, a lower incidence of incomplete defecation at 3 months after surgery, and better sphincter function. However, close attention should be paid to the long-term defecation frequency after SPR.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-021-02243-0.

CORRELATION BETWEEN THE LEVEL OF COLORECTAL ANASTOMOSIS AND ANORECTAL FUNCTION

Anterior rectal resection is a standard surgical procedure for treating carcinomas of rectum and distal sigmoid colon. In many cases of anterior rectal resection, postoperatively some level of fecal incontinence may occur. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of the colorectal anastomosis level on anorectal functional disorder. In our prospective study, the participants were patients diagnosed with carcinoma of rectum or distal sigmoid colon. All patients underwent standard open or laparoscopic anterior rectal resection. Six months after the surgery, the function of anorectum was evaluated in all participants. Finally, 38 patients were analyzed, including 13/38 (34.2%) patients with high rectal anastomosis, 11/38 (28.9%) with mid rectal anastomosis and 14/38 (36.8%) with low rectal anastomosis. Patients with a lower level of anastomosis had a statistically significantly greater number of stools, higher urgency and discrimination impairment, more pronounced solid, liquid and gas incontinence, and greater need for diapers (p<0.05 all). Therefore, patients with lower anastomosis had a statistically significant impairment of their quality of life and higher Wexner score (p<0.001 for both analyses). Our study results suggested reduced neorectal capacity to be the main pathophysiological factor for the development of postoperative anorectal function impairment.

Randomized clinical trial comparing side to end vs end to end techniques for colorectal anastomosis

BACKGROUND

Low anterior resection syndrome affects 60%-90% of patients with anastomoses after colorectal resection. Consensus regarding the best anastomosis is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes after end-to-end versus side-to-end anastomoses.

DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

SETTINGS

University hospital (April 2016-October 2017).

PATIENTS

Patients aged ≥18 years with rectal or sigmoid adenocarcinoma.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to undergo mechanical end-to-end or side-to-end (n = 33) anastomosis after laparoscopic resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was to assess intestinal function (COREFO and LARS questionnaires) 12 months after surgery or ileostomy closure. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications and intestinal function and quality of life (SF-36® questionnaire) at different time points after surgery or ileostomy closure.

RESULTS

No significant differences in intestinal function were observed between the two groups 12 months after surgery. Subanalysis of low-mid rectum tumors with end-to-end anastomosis yielded better function at 12 months. Postoperative complications did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.070), but reinterventions were more common in the side-to-end group (p = 0.040). Multivariate analysis found neoadjuvant treatment was independently associated with intestinal dysfunction at 12 months (β = 0.41, p = 0.033, COREFO; β = 0.41, p = 0.024, LARS).

CONCLUSIONS

End-to-end anastomosis yielded low rates of severe complications and reintervention, as well as better intestinal function at 12 months in the subgroup with tumors in the low-mid rectum.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02746224.

A Comprehensive Review of Randomized Clinical Trials Shaping the Landscape of Rectal Cancer Therapy

Colorectal carcinoma is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, with rectal cancer accounting for approximately one third of newly diagnosed cases. Surgery remains the cornerstone of curative therapy, with total mesorectal excision being the standard of care. Although minimally invasive procedures might be appropriate for a subset of patients with early-stage, superficial tumors, the standard of care for medically operable patients with nonmetastatic rectal cancer includes a comprehensive multimodality approach of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, surgery with total mesorectal excision, and systemic chemotherapy. However, the morbidity and mortality related to both local and distant organ relapse have remained challenging. In the present review, we have discussed the trial-level evidence that has shaped the current clinical practice patterns in the treatment of curable, nonmetastatic rectal cancer. In addition, we have discussed the anticipated results of ongoing clinical trials and outlined pragmatic opportunities for future investigation to optimize the current status quo and, hopefully, provide prospective validation of novel approaches in the treatment of rectal cancer.

Optimising functional outcomes in rectal cancer surgery

Background

By improved surgical technique such as total mesorectal excision (TME), multimodal treatment and advances in imaging survival and an increased rate of sphincter preservation have been achieved in rectal cancer surgery. Minimal-invasive approaches such as laparoscopic, robotic and transanal-TME (ta-TME) enhance recovery after surgery. Nevertheless, disorders of bowel, anorectal and urogenital function are still common and need attention.

Purpose

This review aims at exploring the causes of dysfunction after anterior resection (AR) and the accordingly preventive strategies. Furthermore, the indication for low AR in the light of functional outcome is discussed. The last therapeutic strategies to deal with bowel, anorectal, and urogenital disorders are depicted.

Conclusion

Functional disorders after rectal cancer surgery are frequent and underestimated. More evidence is needed to define an indication for non-operative management or local excision as alternatives to AR. The decision for restorative resection should be made in consideration of the relevant risk factors for dysfunction. In the case of restoration, a side-to-end anastomosis should be the preferred anastomotic technique. Further high-evidence clinical studies are required to clarify the benefit of intraoperative neuromonitoring. While the function of ta-TME seems not to be superior to laparoscopy, case-control studies suggest the benefits of robotic TME mainly in terms of preservation of the urogenital function. Low AR syndrome is treated by stool regulation, pelvic floor therapy, and transanal irrigation. There is good evidence for sacral nerve modulation for incontinence after low AR.

Tools for fecal incontinence assessment: lessons for inflammatory bowel disease trials based on a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Fecal incontinence is a disabling condition affecting up to 20% of women.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated fecal incontinence assessment in both inflammatory bowel disease and non-inflammatory bowel disease patients to propose a diagnostic approach for inflammatory bowel disease trials.

METHODS

We searched on Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library for all studies on adult inflammatory bowel disease and non-inflammatory bowel disease patients reporting data on fecal incontinence assessment from January 2009 to December 2019.

RESULTS

In total, 328 studies were included; 306 studies enrolled non-inflammatory bowel disease patients and 22 studies enrolled inflammatory bowel disease patients. In non-inflammatory bowel disease trials the most used tools were the Wexner score, fecal incontinence quality of life questionnaire, Vaizey score and fecal incontinence severity index (in 187, 91, 62 and 33 studies). Anal manometry was adopted in 41.2% and endoanal ultrasonography in 34.0% of the studies. In 142 studies (46.4%) fecal incontinence evaluation was performed with a single instrument, while in 64 (20.9%) and 100 (32.7%) studies two or more instruments were used. In inflammatory bowel disease studies the Wexner score, Vaizey score and inflammatory bowel disease quality of life questionnaire were the most commonly adopted tools (in five (22.7%), five (22.7%) and four (18.2%) studies). Anal manometry and endoanal ultrasonography were performed in 45.4% and 18.2% of the studies.

CONCLUSION

Based on prior validation and experience, we propose to use the Wexner score as the first step for fecal incontinence assessment in inflammatory bowel disease trials. Anal manometry and/or endoanal ultrasonography should be taken into account in the case of positive questionnaires.

Better Function With a Colonic J-Pouch or a Side-to-end Anastomosis?: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare the Complications, Functional Outcome, and Quality of Life in Patients With Low Rectal Cancer After a J-Pouch or a Side-to-end Anastomosis

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

We aimed to compare prospectively the complications and functional outcome of patients undergoing a J-Pouch (JP) or a side-to-end anastomosis (SE) for treatment of low rectal cancer at a 2-year time point after resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A multicenter study was conducted on patients with low rectal cancer who were randomized to receive either a JP or SE and were followed for 24 months utilizing SF-12 and FACT-C surveys to evaluate the quality of life (QOL). Fecal incontinence was evaluated using the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI). Bowel function, complications, and their treatments were recorded.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-eight patients (165 males) were randomized with 167 final eligible patients, 80 in the JP group and 87 in the SE group for evaluation. The mean age at surgery was 61 (range 29 to 82) years. The overall mean recurrence rate was 12 of 238, 5% and similar in both groups.

COMPLICATIONS

Overall, 37 of 190 (19%) patients reported complications, 14 of these were Clavien Dindo Grade 3b and 2 were 3a: leak 3 (2 JP,1 SE), fistula 4 (1 JP, 3 SE), small bowel obstruction 4 (3JP, 1 SE), stricture 4 (3 SE, 1 SA), pouch necrosis 2 (JP), and wound infection 5 (2 JP, 3 SE). QOL scores using either instrument between the 2 groups at 12 and 24 months were similar (P > 0.05). Bowel movements, clustering, and FISI scores were similar.

CONCLUSION

At time points of 1 and 2 years after a JP or a SE for low rectal cancer, QOL, functional outcome, and complications are comparable between the groups. Although choosing a particular procedure may depend on surgeon/patient choice or anatomical considerations at the time of surgery, SE functions similar to JP and may be chosen due to the ease of construction.

Randomized Clinical Trials in Colon and Rectal Cancer

Surgery remains the mainstay of treatment for colon and rectal cancers. Colon cancer outcomes have improved with laparoscopic techniques, enhanced recovery pathways, and adjuvant chemotherapy. Adjuvant 5-fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin in stage III and possibly high-risk stage II colon cancer is associated with improved survival. Multimodality management of rectal cancer continues to evolve; total mesorectal excision is the cornerstone. Oncologic results do not support the use of laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer. Preoperative short- or long-course radiation for stage II or III rectal cancer is the standard of care. Long course chemoradiation is recommended for bulky tumors.

Usefulness of Anorectal Manometry for Diagnosing Continence Problems After a Low Anterior Resection

Purpose

For several decades, the low anterior resection (LAR) with total mesorectal excision (TME) has been the gold standard for treating patients with rectal cancer. Up to 90% of patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery will have changes in bowel habits, so-called 'anterior resection syndrome.' This study examined patients' continence after a LAR for the treatment of rectal cancer.

Methods

This prospective study was performed between September 2014 and August 2015 at the National Cancer Institute and included 30 patients who underwent anorectal manometry preoperatively and at 3 and 4 months after a LAR, but 10 were excluded from further evaluation for various reasons. Wexner score was recorded preoperatively and 4 months after LAR (1 month after ileostomy repair).

Results

Postoperatively, 70% of patients complained of some degree of soiling (incontinence to liquid stool), and 30% experienced urgent defecation. Four months after surgery, these symptoms had somewhat abated. The anal resting pressure and the maximum squeezing pressure did not change significantly. Rectal capacity and compliance were reduced in all patients. The majority of patients demonstrated manometric anorectal changes and clinical anorectal function disorders during the first 4 months after surgery. The Wexner scores and the manometric findings showed no correlation.

Conclusion

Many patients undergoing a LAR with TME for the treatment of rectal cancer experience some degree of incontinence postoperatively. Anorectal manometry may be used as an additional tool for evaluating problems with continence after a LAR. No correlation between the Wexner score and the manometric findings was observed.

The functional results of radical rectal cancer surgery: review of the literature

Introduction For more than the last 20 years, low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) is a gold standard for rectal cancer treatment. Oncological outcomes have improved significantly and now more and more reports of functional outcomes appear. Due to the close relationship between the rectum and pelvic nerves, bowel, bladder, and sexual function are frequently affected during TME. Methods A search for published data was performed using the MEDLINE database (from 1 January 2005 to 31 January 2015) to perform a systematic review of the studies that described anorectal, bladder, and sexual dysfunction following rectal cancer surgery. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the MINORS criteria. Results Eighty-nine studies were eligible for analysis. Up to 76% of patients undergoing sphincter preserving surgery will have changes in bowel habits, the so-called "low anterior resection syndrome" (LARS). The duration of LARS varies between a few months and several years. Pre-operative radiotherapy, damage of anal sphincter and pelvic nerves, and height of the anastomosis are the risk factors for LARS. There is no evidence-based treatment available for LARS. Sexual function is more commonly affected after rectal surgery than after urinary function. The main cause of dysfunction is damage to pelvic nerves. Sexual and bladder functional outcomes in females are less well reported. Laparoscopic and robotic surgery allows better visualization of autonomic nerves and, therefore, more precise dissection and preservation. Conclusions It is important that rectal resection is standardized as much as possible, and that new functional outcome research use the same validated outcome questionnaires. This would allow for a high-quality meta-analysis.

The Functional Outcomes of Coloanal and Low Colorectal Anastomoses with Reservoirs after Low Rectal Cancer Resections

Nearly half of patients undergoing low anterior rectal cancer resection have a functional sequelae after straight coloanal or low colorectal anastomoses (SA), including low anterior rectal resection syndrome, which combines stool fragmentation, urge incontinence, and incontinence. SA are responsible for anastomotic leakage rates of 0 to 29.2 per cent. Adding a colonic reservoir improves the functional results while reducing anastomotic complications. These colonic reservoir techniques include the colonic J pouch (CJP), transverse coloplasty (TC), and side-to-end anastomosis (STEA) procedures. The aim of this literature review was to compare the functional outcomes of these three techniques from a high level of evidence. CJP with a 4- to 6-cm reservoir is a good surgical option because it reduces functional impairments during the first year, and probably up to 5 years, but is not always feasible. TC appears to perform as well as CJP, is achievable in over 95 per cent of patients, but still with some doubts about a higher anastomotic leakage rate and worse functional outcomes. STEA appears equivalent to CJP in terms of morbidity and even better functional outcomes. STEA, with a terminal side segment size of 3 cm, is feasible in the majority of nonobese patients, combines good functional results, has low anastomotic leakage rates, and is easy to complete.

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS): cause and effect and reconstructive considerations

Between 25 and 80% of patients undergoing a low or very low anterior resection will suffer postoperatively, from a constellation of symptoms including fecal urgency, frequent bowel movements, bowel fragmentation and incontinence, collectively referred to as the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). The etiology of LARS is multifactorial with the potential of sphincter injury during anastomosis construction, alterations in anorectal physiology, the development of a pudendal neuropathy, and a lumbar plexopathy with exacerbation of symptoms if there is associated anastomotic sepsis or the use of adjuvant and neoadjuavnt therapies. The symptoms of LARS may be obviated in part by the construction of a neorectal reservoir which may take the form of a colonic J-pouch, a transverse coloplasty, or a side-to-end anastomosis. This review outlines the factors contributing to LARS symptomatology along with the short- and medium-term functional results of comparative trials with the different types of neorectal reconstructions.

Functional disorders after rectal cancer resection: does a rehabilitation programme improve anal continence and quality of life?

AIM

A poor functional outcome is often reported after total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer, especially when sphincter-saving resection with intersphincteric dissection is performed for low tumours. Anal sphincter rehabilitation is widely proposed for faecal incontinence. Very few studies have reported results to improve anal dysfunction following rectal surgery. This prospective study aimed to assess the benefits of sphincter training after TME in terms of functional outcome and quality of life.

METHODS

Anal sphincter training was performed in patients undergoing laparoscopic sphincter-saving TME for rectal cancer. Rehabilitation was performed after ileostomy closure. This group was compared with 24 matched patients. Assessment included one functional and two quality of life questionnaires (SF-36 Health Status and Faecal Incontinence Quality of Life score).

RESULTS

From 2007 to 2009, 22 patients underwent laparoscopic TME. The median follow-up after stoma closure was 21.2 (range 8-46) months. The mean stool frequency per day was significantly lower after sphincter training (2.6 in the training group vs 4.0 in the control group, P=0.025). Following rehabilitation, patients complained significantly less about dyschezia (22 vs 63%, P=0.008). Both groups had similar continence (Wexner score 8.3 after training vs 9.9 in controls, NS). Quality of life was significantly improved by sphincter training as measured by the vitality (P=0.004) and mental functioning (P=0.02) subscales on the SF-36 Health Status questionnaire and by the depression and self-perception (P = 0.005) categories of the Faecal Incontinence Quality of Life score.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that anal sphincter training following TME could decrease stool frequency and improve both general and specific quality of life.

Better functional outcome provided by short-armed sigmoid colon-rectal side-to-end anastomosis after laparoscopic low anterior resection: a match-paired retrospective study from China

PURPOSE

Side-to-end anastomosis using the descending colon has been proved to be as effective as J pouch in alleviating low anterior resection syndrome. However, using the sigmoid colon, which is less compliant for reconstruction after rectal cancer surgery, is common in China due to less prevalence of diverticulosis. The effectiveness of using the sigmoid colon for a side-to-end colorectal anastomosis in improving bowel dysfunction after laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer has not been investigated. This study was designed to compare the functional and surgical outcomes between the two anastomoses.

METHODS

From October 2007 to December 2008, 16 rectal cancer patients underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection with short-armed (length of side limb 2-4 cm) side-to-end sigmoidorectal anastomosis at our department. The bowel functional results of these patients at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively were recorded and compared with that of another 1:2 matched 30 patients undergoing straight anastomosis.

RESULTS

Bowel movement frequency in the side-to-end group was obviously less than that in the straight group 6 months postoperatively. Patients in the side-to-end group also had an improved incontinence score, a better ability to defer defecation, and less repeated evacuation. No differences were found between two groups 1 year after surgery.

CONCLUSION

The study shows that the short-armed side-to-end colorectal anastomosis using the sigmoid colon can also improve the short-term bowel function in patients undergoing laparoscopic low anterior resection.

Sphincter preservation for distal rectal cancer - a goal worth achieving at all costs?

To assess the merits of currently available treatment options in the management of patients with low rectal cancer, a review of the medical literature pertaining to the operative and non-operative management of low rectal cancer was performed, with particular emphasis on sphincter preservation, oncological outcome, functional outcome, morbidity, quality of life, and patient preference. Low anterior resection (AR) is technically feasible in an increasing proportion of patients with low rectal cancer. The cost of sphincter preservation is the risk of morbidity and poor functional outcome in a significant proportion of patients. Transanal and endoscopic surgery are attractive options in selected patients that can provide satisfactory oncological outcomes while avoiding the morbidity and functional sequelae of open total mesorectal excision. In complete responders to neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, a non-operative approach may prove to be an option. Abdominoperineal excision (APE) imposes a permanent stoma and is associated with significant incidence of perineal morbidity but avoids the risk of poor functional outcome following AR. Quality of life following AR and APE is comparable. Given the choice, most patients will choose AR over APE, however patients following APE positively appraise this option. In striving toward sphincter preservation the challenge is not only to achieve the best possible oncological outcome, but also to ensure that patients with low rectal cancer have realistic and accurate expectations of their treatment choice so that the best possible overall outcome can be obtained by each individual.