Intersphincteric resection and coloanal anastomosis in treatment of distal rectal cancer

Functional outcomes of intersphincteric resection in low rectal tumors

OBJECTIVES

Currently, sphincter-saving procedures are increasingly performed in the treatment of low rectal cancers. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent intersphincteric resection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional study. We evaluated the electronic data files of 29 patients who had intersphincteric resections at our institute between 2008 and 2018. Bowel function outcomes were assessed prospectively using Wexner incontinence score. Histopathological, surgical and functional outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Mean age of nine female and 20 male patients included in the study was 55.8 ± 12.8 (30-76) years. A tumor-free surgical margin was achieved in all patients. Anastomotic leakage was detected in two patients. Mean Wexner incontinence score of 20 patients who still had functional anastomosis was 8.35, whereas 65% of the patients (n= 13) had a good continence status. There was no relationship between the continence status and sex, tumor distance from anal verge, T stage, distal surgical margin, and lymph node involvement. Twenty-one patients underwent primary coloanal anastomosis and eight patients underwent two-stage coloanal anastomosis.

CONCLUSION

In the treatment of distal rectal cancer, adequate oncological surgery and relatively acceptable functional outcomes can be obtained with intersphincteric resection technique in suitable patients.

Critical surgical errors by junior fellows and trainees in low rectal cancer surgery: How to overcome?(A cross-sectional study)

Aim

Technical difficulties are usually reported in low rectal cancer (LRC) surgery. Moreover inadvertent surgical errors could happen mostly due to lack of experience of the assisting surgeons. Unfortunately, these errors may end up with raising a permanent stoma. In this study we are reporting seven inadvertent surgical mishaps during surgeries for LRC which resulted in failure of the planned circular end to end anastomosis and how we approached them by different salvage techniques.

Patients and methods

All surgical mistakes were salvaged by two of our senior consultants with intraoperative decision to shift to another approach to attain intestinal continuity. Two patients had direct handswen coloanal anastomosis, three received colon pull through and two with redo stapled circular end to end anastomosis after shifting to the anterior perineal plane. Postoperative assessment of the functional state using wexner score was done for all cases.

Results

All surgical mistakes had been overcomed after shifting to the transanal and/or perineal approach and we were able to regain intestinal continuity in all cases Circumferential and distal margins were free in all specimens. Two patients showed optimal continence with wexner score 3,5 respectively, Two had suboptimal continence Wexner 6,7. Female patient with iatrogenic rectovaginal fistula suffered from poor quality of life and asked for permanent stoma.

Conclusion

All trainees and junior fellows in should receive a clearly defined training program and focused education with different staplers; additionally they should work under supervision of the senior consultants who should be sufficiently experienced with different salvage approaches.

•

Low rectal cancer surgery is demanding even in the hands of experienced colorectal surgeons.

•

Inadvertent surgical errors could happen due to lack of experience of the assisting surgeons.

•

Salvage procedures may be the key to restore intestinal continuity.

•

All trainees and junior fellows in colorectal units should receive a clearly defined training programs.

Laparoscopic Ultra Low Anterior Resection: Single Center, 6-Year Study

Background: This study represents a prospective analysis of a series of laparoscopic ultra low anterior resection (ULAR) done at a laparoscopic surgical center to assess the surgical outcome, oncological efficacy, and quality of life after surgery. Methods: Over a period of 6 years (2013-2018), 43 patients aged between 40 and 68 years, with very low rectal cancers (3-6 cm from the anal verge), within T3N1M0 stage, assessed by positron emission tomography-computed tomography and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by laparoscopic ULAR and simultaneous diversion ileostomy. Results: The overall complication rate was low and there was an overall leak rate of 9.3% with a radiological leak (Grade A) in 3 of the 43 patients (7%), but only 1 (2.3%) patient required a local lavage and a resuturing for secondary hemorrhage. Recurrence was seen in 2/43 (4.7%), one of whom had a conversion to abdominoperineal resection. The other had distant metastasis and refused further treatment. The functional outcome is assessed in 41 (95.3%) patients by low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score and a reasonable quality of life with major LARS was seen in only 7.3% of the patients at a follow-up ranging from 1 to 6 years. Conclusion: The nCRT followed by laparoscopic ULAR is a feasible option for operable very low rectal cancers and is associated with minimal postoperative events, a low local recurrence and less incidence of LARS.

Oncologic outcomes for low rectal adenocarcinoma following low anterior resection with coloanal anastomosis versus abdominoperineal resection: a National Cancer Database propensity matched analysis

PURPOSE

Low anterior resection with coloanal anastomosis (CAA) for low rectal cancer is a technically difficult operation with limited data available on oncologic outcomes. We aim to investigate overall survival and operative oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent CAA compared to abdominoperineal resection (APR).

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (2004-2013) was used to identify patients with non-metastatic rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent CAA or APR. Patients were 1:1 matched on age, gender, Charlson score, tumor size, tumor grade, pathologic stage, and radiation treatment with propensity scores. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and resection margins.

RESULTS

Following matching, 3536 patients remained in each group. No significant differences in matched demographic, treatment, or tumor variables were seen between groups. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (1.24% vs. 1.39%, p = 0.60). Following resection, margins were more likely to be negative after CAA compared with APR (5.26% vs. 8.14%, p < 0.001). When stratified by pathologic stage, there was a significant survival advantage for individuals undergoing CAA compared to APR (stage 1 HR 0.72, [95% CI 0.62-0.85], p < 0.001; stage 2 HR 0.76, [95% CI 0.65-0.88], p < 0.001; stage 3 HR 0.76, [95% CI 0.67-0.85], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing CAA compared with APR for rectal cancer have better overall survival and are less likely to have positive margins despite the technically challenging operation.

Exploring bowel dysfunction of patients following colorectal surgery: A cohort study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To examine changes in patients' bowel function and to compare patients' outcome among different operation and treatment after rectal resection.

BACKGROUND

Anal-preserving surgery is the trend of treatment of colorectal cancer and bowel function after surgery needs to be concerned.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

METHODS

A total of 38 patients with convenience sampling were recruited from a teaching hospital. The low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score was used to assess bowel function disturbances before discharge and at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months after discharge. We followed the STROBE checklist to ensure rigour in our study.

RESULTS

Approximately half of the patients experienced major LARS, including daily stool frequency of more than seven times and stool clustering at least once a week. The LARS scores observed at 1 month after discharge were significantly higher than those observed before discharge. Patients who received intersphincteric resection had higher LARS scores compared with those who received other surgeries. Furthermore, patients who underwent concurrent chemoradiotherapy, operation (OP) and chemotherapy had the highest LARS scores compared with those who underwent only an OP.

CONCLUSION

The patients experienced varied intestinal dysfunction after surgery based on their treatment plan and surgical method. Nurses should provide individualised health education for these patients.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

A health education booklet is recommended to educate patients about LARS symptoms and the techniques to adapt in their daily lives after surgery.

Critical and Challenging Issues in the Surgical Management of Low-Lying Rectal Cancer

Despite innovative advancements, the management of distally located rectal cancer (RC) remains a formidable endeavor. The critical location of the tumor predisposes it to a circumferential resection margin that tends to involve the sphincters and surrounding organs, pelvic lymph node metastasis, and anastomotic complications. In this regard, colorectal surgeons should be aware of issues beyond the performance of total mesorectal excision (TME). For decades, abdominoperineal resection had been the standard of care for low-lying RC; however, its association with high rates of tumor recurrence, tumor perforation, and poorer survival has stimulated the development of novel surgical techniques and modifications, such as extralevator abdominoperineal excision. Similarly, difficult dissections and poor visualization, especially in obese patients with low-lying tumors, have led to the development of transanal TME or the "bottom-to-up" approach. Additionally, while neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has allowed for the execution of more sphincter-saving procedures without oncologic compromise, functional outcomes remain an issue. Nevertheless, neoadjuvant treatment can lead to significant tumor regression and complete pathological response, permitting the utilization of organ-preserving strategies. At present, an East and West dualism pervades the management of lateral lymph node metastasis, thereby calling for a more global and united approach. Moreover, with the increasing importance of quality of life, a tailored, individualized treatment approach is of utmost importance when taking into account oncologic and anticipated functional outcomes.

Long-Term Functional and Oncological Outcomes Following Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancers

Surgery for low rectal cancer often involves a permanent stoma. Intersphincteric resection (ISR) with colo-anal anastomosis is a valuable sphincter sparing surgical procedure that avoids the need for permanent stoma in patients with low rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term functional and oncological outcomes following ISR. This was a retrospective analysis of patients with low rectal cancer who underwent ISR with colo-anal anastomosis in our institution between 2007 and 2015. All patients had a diversion stoma. Bowel function outcomes were assessed prospectively using Wexner incontinence score, low anterior resection syndrome score (LARS), and the Cancer Institute Quality of Life (QoL) questionnaire. The histological reports were reviewed to assess the oncological adequacy of the surgery. Patterns of recurrence and survival were analyzed in this group of patients. Thirty-three patients who underwent an ISR were eligible for this study. Laparoscopic resection was performed in five patients. All the patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation except the two who received short course radiation and one who did not receive any neoadjuvant treatment. The median distance from the anal verge to the distal edge of the tumor was 3 cm (range 1.5-5 cm). Distal resection margins and circumferential resection margins were negative in all the patients. The 30-day post-operative mortality rate was 3.03%. In 20 patients with a median follow-up of 48 months, the 3-year overall survival was 95%. One patient had recurrence in the para-aortic nodes. No patient had a local recurrence. Bowel function was assessed in 18 patients who had a minimum stoma free period of 1 year. After a median of 43 months following stoma closure, the median Wexner score was 3.56 (range 0-19), median LARS score was 4.78 (range 0-33), and the mean Cancer Institute QoL score was 151.56 ± 15.741. The QoL was average to very high with an overall acceptable quality of life. In this study, ISR was associated with acceptable long-term functional and oncological outcomes. It can be considered as a safe alternative to a permanent stoma in selected patients with low rectal cancer.

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer

For low rectal cancer located < 5 cm from the anal verge, abdominoperineal resection (APR) with permanent sigmoid colostomy is usually used to ensure the R0 resection. Sphincter saving surgery has emerged in the last 20 years, and the introduction of intersphincteric resection (ISR) can successfully preserve the anal function and guarantee a radical tumor resection for patients with ultra-low lying tumors. Therefore, the use of APR has been consistently declining worldwide. Recently, a growing body of research on ISR has been reported. However, more evidence based results are needed to clarify some issues about ISR. In the current review, we discuss the indications for ISR and the oncological and functional outcomes following the procedure. Some technique issues of ISR are also discussed.

Low rectal cancer: Sphincter preserving techniques-selection of patients, techniques and outcomes

Low rectal cancer is traditionally treated by abdominoperineal resection. In recent years, several new techniques for the treatment of very low rectal cancer patients aiming to preserve the gastrointestinal continuity and to improve both the oncological as well as the functional outcomes, have been emerged. Literature suggest that when the intersphincteric resection is applied in T1-3 tumors located within 30-35 mm from the anal verge, is technically feasible, safe, with equal oncological outcomes compared to conventional surgery and acceptable quality of life. The Anterior Perineal PlanE for Ultra-low Anterior Resection technique, is not disrupting the sphincters, but carries a high complication rate, while the reports on the oncological and functional outcomes are limited. Transanal Endoscopic MicroSurgery (TEM) and TransAnal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS) should represent the treatment of choice for T1 rectal tumors, with specific criteria according to the NCCN guidelines and favorable pathologic features. Alternatively to the standard conventional surgery, neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy followed by TEM or TAMIS seems promising for tumors of a local stage T1sm2-3 or T2. Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision should be performed only when a board approved protocol is available by colorectal surgeons with extensive experience in minimally invasive and transanal endoscopic surgery.