Intersphincteric Resection Versus Abdominoperineal Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Outcomes of Distal Rectal Cancer Patients Who Did Not Qualify for Watch-and-Wait: Comparison of Intersphincteric Resection Versus Abdominoperineal Resection

INTRODUCTION

Total mesorectal excision (TME) with intersphincteric resection and handsewn coloanal anastomosis (ISR-CAA) has been shown to be oncologically safe in patients with distal rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiation. The introduction of the watch-and-wait (WW) strategy for rectal cancer patients with a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy is changing the profile of patients undergoing TME surgery immediately following neoadjuvant treatment. The outcomes of ISR-CAA for patients with locally advanced rectal cancers not qualifying for WW have not been investigated.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis comparing the outcomes of ISR-CAA and abdominoperineal resection (APR) in patients with distal rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy and not qualifying for WW, at a comprehensive cancer center with an established WW program. The primary outcome was local recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients had ISR-CAA and 79 had APR. Median follow-up was 61.1 months. The two groups were similar in sex, tumor stage, grade, and distance from the anal verge, but patients in the APR group were older on average. An R0 resection was achieved in 94% of ISR-CAA patients and 91% of APR patients. Patients in the ISR-CAA group had a lower 5-year rate of local recurrence-free survival (79% vs. 93%; p = 0.038) compared with the APR group; however, 5-year disease-free survival did not differ significantly between groups (67% for ISR-CAA and 64% for APR; p = 0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

The local recurrence rate after ISR-CAA may be higher than after APR for patients without a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy requiring TME surgery.

Transperineal minimally invasive surgery during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer could improve short-term outcomes: A single-institution retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Transperineal minimally invasive surgery (TpMIS) during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) is an emerging approach that allows for the precise treatment of lower rectal cancer. However, evidence regarding the efficacy of TpMIS is insufficient. This study evaluated the efficacy of TpMIS during laparoscopic APR for patients with lower rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic APR with TpMIS (TpMIS group; n = 12) and those who underwent conventional laparoscopic APR for low rectal cancer (conventional group; n = 13) were enrolled consecutively in this retrospective study. Standardized TpMIS was performed at our institution. Patient and tumor characteristics and intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological outcomes were compared between groups. The primary outcome was postoperative perineal wound infection.

RESULTS

No patients in the TpMIS group experienced postoperative perineal wound infection; however, five (38.5%) patients in the conventional group experienced postoperative perineal wound infection (significant difference; p = 0.016). The estimated blood loss (median, 81 mL vs. 463 mL) and incidence of postoperative urinary dysfunction (8.3% vs. 46.1%) were significantly lower in the TpMIS group than in the conventional group. The postoperative hospital stay (median, 13 vs. 20 days) of the TpMIS group was significantly shorter than that of the conventional group. Pathological outcomes did not differ between groups. The positive circumferential resection margin rates of the TpMIS and conventional groups were 8.3% and 15.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

TpMIS during laparoscopic APR was associated with significant improvements in the postoperative outcomes of patients with low rectal cancer.

International standardization and optimization group for intersphincteric resection (ISOG-ISR): modified Delphi consensus on anatomy, definition, indication, surgical technique, specimen description and functional outcome

AIM

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is an oncologically complex operation for very low-lying rectal cancers. Yet, definition, anatomical description, operative indications and operative approaches to ISR are not standardized. The aim of this study was to standardize the definition of ISR by reaching international consensus from the experts in the field. This standardization will allow meaningful comparison in the literature in the future.

METHOD

A modified Delphi approach with three rounds of questionnaire was adopted. A total of 29 international experts from 11 countries were recruited for this study. Six domains with a total of 37 statements were examined, including anatomical definition; definition of intersphincteric dissection, intersphincteric resection (ISR) and ultra-low anterior resection (uLAR); indication for ISR; surgical technique of ISR; specimen description of ISR; and functional outcome assessment protocol.

RESULTS

Three rounds of questionnaire were performed (response rate 100%, 89.6%, 89.6%). Agreement (≥80%) reached standardization on 36 statements.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an international expert consensus-based definition and standardization of ISR. This is the first study standardizing terminology and definition of deep pelvis/anal canal anatomy from a surgical point of view. Intersphincteric dissection, ISR and uLAR were specifically defined for precise surgical description. Indication for ISR was determined by the rectal tumour's maximal radial infiltration (T stage) below the levator ani. A new surgical definition of T3isp was reached by consensus to define T3 low rectal tumours infiltrating the intersphincteric plane. A practical flowchart for surgical indication for uLAR/ISR/abdominoperineal resection was developed. A standardized ISR surgical technique and functional outcome assessment protocol was defined.

Long-term outcomes and failure patterns after laparoscopic intersphincteric resection in ultralow rectal cancers

BACKGROUND

Intersphincteric resection (ISR), the ultimate anus-preserving technique for ultralow rectal cancers, is an alternative to abdominoperineal resection (APR). The failure patterns and risk factors for local recurrence and distant metastasis remain controversial and require further investigation.

AIM

To investigate the long-term outcomes and failure patterns after laparoscopic ISR in ultralow rectal cancers.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic ISR (LsISR) at Peking University First Hospital between January 2012 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Correlation analysis was performed using the Chi-square or Pearson's correlation test. Prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were analyzed using Cox regression.

RESULTS

We enrolled 368 patients with a median follow-up of 42 mo. Local recurrence and distant metastasis occurred in 13 (3.5%) and 42 (11.4%) cases, respectively. The 3-year OS, LRFS, and DMFS rates were 91.3%, 97.1%, and 90.1%, respectively. Multivariate analyses revealed that LRFS was associated with positive lymph node status [hazard ratio (HR) = 5.411, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.413-20.722, P = 0.014] and poor differentiation (HR = 3.739, 95%CI: 1.171-11.937, P = 0.026), whereas the independent prognostic factors for DMFS were positive lymph node status (HR = 2.445, 95%CI: 1.272-4.698, P = 0.007) and (y)pT3 stage (HR = 2.741, 95%CI: 1.225-6.137, P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the oncological safety of LsISR for ultralow rectal cancer. Poor differentiation, (y)pT3 stage, and lymph node metastasis are independent risk factors for treatment failure after LsISR, and thus patients with these factors should be carefully managed with optimal neoadjuvant therapy, and for patients with a high risk of local recurrence (N + or poor differentiation), extended radical resection (such as APR instead of ISR) may be more effective.

Effect of Anterograde Lavage via Temporary Loop Ileostoma on the Recovery of Bowel Function in Patients Receiving Stoma Closure: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The effect of anterograde lavage in patients with rectal cancer who underwent anterior resection and plan to receive stoma closure is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the effect of anterograde lavage on postoperative bowel function recovery in patients who underwent temporary loop ileostomy and stoma closure.

DESIGN

This was a hospital-based retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

All consecutive patients who underwent anterior resection for rectal cancer and were planning to receive stoma closure from March through December 2019 were included.

INTERVENTIONS

The enrolled patients were divided into 2 groups according to whether they received anterograde lavage before stoma closure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Short-term functional outcomes, including time to first passing of flatus, first defecation time, and recovery time to first meal, were compared between the groups. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, total cost of hospitalization, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 222 eligible participants were included in the analysis, including 114 in the lavage group and 108 in the nonlavage group. No statistically significant differences were found in age, sex ratio, or distance between the anastomotic line and dentate line. In the lavage group, patients' time to first passing of flatus (38 vs 42 h; p = 0.006), first defecation time (42 vs 48 h; p < 0.001), recovery time to first meal (48 vs 55.5 h; p < 0.001), and length of hospital stay (5 vs 7 d; p < 0.001) were significantly shorter than those in the nonlavage group, and the total cost of hospitalization was significantly lower than that of the nonlavage group (25,000 vs 28,000 RMB; p < 0.001). No significant difference was found in the incidence of postoperative complications between the 2 groups (p = 0.067).

LIMITATIONS

This study is limited by its relatively small sample size and retrospective design with single-center participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Anterograde lavage before stoma closure is safe and noninvasive. For patients receiving anterior resection and planning to have stoma closure, this procedure can potentially help recover bowel function more rapidly. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C51.

EFECTO DEL LAVADO ANTERGRADO MEDIANTE ILEOSTOMA TEMPORAL EN ASA SOBRE LA RECUPERACIN DE LA FUNCIN INTESTINAL EN PACIENTES QUE RECIBEN CIERRE DE ESTOMA UN ESTUDIO DE COHORTE RETROSPECTIVO

ANTECEDENTES:No está claro el efecto del lavado anterógrado en pacientes con cáncer de recto con resección anterior que planean recibir el cierre del estoma.OBJETIVO:Investigar el efecto del lavado anterógrado en la recuperación de la función intestinal posoperatoria en pacientes que se sometieron a ileostomía en asa temporal y cierre de estoma.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo basado en el hospital.AJUSTES:Centro de referencia terciario.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a una resección anterior por cáncer de recto y que planeaban recibir el cierre del estoma desde marzo hasta diciembre de 2019.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes inscritos se dividieron en dos grupos según si recibieron lavado anterógrado antes del cierre del estoma.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados funcionales a corto plazo, incluido el tiempo de la primera evacuación de flatos, tiempo de la primera defecación y tiempo de recuperación hasta la primera comida, se compararon entre los grupos. Resultados secundarios incluyeron duración de la estancia hospitalaria, costo total de la hospitalización y complicaciones posoperatorias.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron en el análisis un total de 222 participantes elegibles, incluidos 114 en el grupo de lavado y 108 en el grupo de no lavado. No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas en la edad, la proporción de sexos o la distancia entre la línea de anastomosis y la línea dentada. En el grupo de lavado, el tiempo de la primera evacuación de flatos de los pacientes (38 vs 42 h; p = 0,006), el tiempo de la primera defecación (42 vs 48 h; p < 0,001), el tiempo de recuperación hasta la primera comida (48 vs 55,5 h; p < 0,001) y la duración de la estancia hospitalaria (5 vs 7 días; p < 0,001) fueron significativamente más cortos que los del grupo de no lavado, y el costo total de la hospitalización fue significativamente menor que el del grupo de no lavado (25000 vs 28000 RMB; p < 0,001). No hubo diferencia significativa en la incidencia de complicaciones postoperatorias entre los dos grupos (p = 0,067).LIMITACIONES:Este estudio está limitado por su tamaño de muestra relativamente pequeño y su diseño retrospectivo con participantes de un solo centro.CONCLUSIONES:El lavado anterógrado antes del cierre del estoma es seguro y no invasivo. Para los pacientes que se someten a una resección anterior y planean cerrar el estoma, este procedimiento puede ayudar potencialmente a recuperar la función intestinal más rápidamente. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C51. (Traducción-Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Feasibility and advantages analyses of wedge resection without mesentery detached approach applied to closure of loop ileostomy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility and advantages of wedge resection plus transverse suture without mesentery detached approach applied to loop ileostomy closure by analyzing the surgical data and the incidence of postoperative complications of patients undergoing this procedure.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the hospitalization data of patients who underwent ileostomy closure surgery and met the research standards from January 2017 to April 2021 in Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital; all surgeries were performed by the same surgeon. The perioperative data were statistically analyzed by grouping.

RESULTS

In total, 65 patients were enrolled in this study, with 12 in the wedge resection group, 35 in the stapler group, and 18 in the hand suture group. There was no significant difference in operation time between the wedge resection group and stapler group (P > 0.05), but both groups had shorter operation time than that in the hand suture group (P < 0.05). The postoperative exhaustion time of wedge resection group was earlier than that of the others, and cost of surgical consumables in the wedge resection group was significantly lower than that in the stapler group, all with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). By contrast, there were no statistically significant differences in postoperative complication incidences among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The wedge resection plus transverse suture without mesentery detached approach is safe and easy for closure of loop ileostomy in selected patients, and the intestinal motility recovers rapidly postoperatively. It costs less surgical consumables, and is particularly suitable for the currently implemented Diagnosis-Related Groups payment method.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety Between da Vinci Robotic and Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

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.