Long-term results of intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer

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.

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.

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.

Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection versus an open approach for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term and mid-term effects of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection with the conventional open approach for patients with low rectal cancer through a meta-analysis.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Ovid databases were searched for eligible studies until March 2017. Operation time, blood loss, circumferential resection margin-positive rate, distal margin length, number of resected lymph nodes, diverting stoma rate, postoperative overall morbidity, anastomotic leakage, and hospital stay were the main short-term effect endpoints. We also examined disease-free survival, overall survival, local recurrence, and post-operational anal function as secondary outcomes to evaluate the mid-term effects of laparoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

Five studies involving 620 patients were included in the analyses. Compared with the open approach, the laparoscopic ISR had less blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD] = - 214.65 ml, 95% CI [- 370.44, - 196.13], p < 0.01), less postoperative overall morbidity (OR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.40, 0.86], p < 0.01), and shorter duration of hospital stay (WMD = - 5.87 days, 95% CI [- 11.35, - 0.40], p < 0.05); however, the operation time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (WMD = 47.34 min, 95% CI [4.10, 90.58], p < 0.05). No other significant differences were observed.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ISR for low rectal cancer offers fewer complications and faster recovery, with similar operation quality and mid-term oncological results than the conventional approach. Although this technique is comparatively more complex than the conventional approach and requires practice, laparoscopic ISR shows great potential as a surgical option and deserves further clinical study.

The lived experiences of patients with post-operative rectal cancer who suffer from altered bowel function: A phenomenological study

PURPOSE

Altered bowel function is a common consequence of anal sphincter-saving surgery in rectal cancer patients, and bowel symptoms influence patients' daily life and psychosocial status. Patients have inadequate professional support because care specialists fail do fully appreciate the impact of the patients' symptoms. In-depth exploration of the individual's experience is essential to improve the quality of patient care. The purpose of this study was to explore the lived experiences of post-operative rectal cancer patients with altered bowel function.

METHODS

This Husserlian descriptive phenomenological study recruited 16 post-operative rectal cancer patients with altered bowel function. Data was collected through purposive sampling and one-on-one in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Narratives were analyzed thematically using Colaizzi's seven-step method.

RESULTS

Three themes emerged, namely: "living in the restroom", "never backward", and "rebalancing on a new road". "Living in the restroom" described how patients frequent the restroom due to post-operative physical changes. "Never backward" outlined that such changes disturbed their mood, interrupted their daily activities, and affected their family life. "Rebalancing on a new road" described the patients' coping strategies, which included spiritual reconstruction, a new excrement model, an adjusted lifestyle, and peer support.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-operative rectal cancer patients with altered bowel function frequent the restroom for prolonged periods, which disturbs their psychosocial status. However, they are forced to develop coping methods by themselves. Specialists can offer effective early post-operative interventions by thoroughly understanding each patient's symptomatic experience, symptom-related interferences, and primary concerns.

Robot-assisted intersphincteric resection facilitates an efficient sphincter-saving in patients with low rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Few investigations of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection (ISR) are presently available to support this procedure as a safe and efficient procedure. We aimed to evaluate the utility of robot-assisted ISR by comparison between ISR and abdominoperineal resection (APR) using both robot-assisted and open approaches.

METHODS

The 558 patients with lower rectal cancer (LRC) who underwent curative operation was enrolled between July 2010 and June 2015 to perform either by robot-assisted (ISR vs. APR = 310 vs. 34) or open approaches (144 vs. 70). Perioperative and functional outcomes including urogenital and anorectal dysfunctions were measured. Recurrence and survival were examined in 216 patients in which >3 years had elapsed after the operation.

RESULTS

The robot-assisted approach was the most significant parameter to determine ISR achievement among potent parameters (OR = 3.467, 95% CI = 2.095-5.738, p < 0.001). Early surgical complications occurred more frequently in the open ISR group (16 vs. 7.7%, p = 0.01). The voiding and male sexual dysfunctions were significantly more frequent in the open ISR (p < 0.05). The fecal incontinence and lifestyle alteration score was greater in the open ISR than in the robot-assisted ISR at 12 and 24 months, respectively (p < 0.05). However, the 3-year cumulative rates of local recurrence and survival did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The current procedure of robot-assisted ISR replaced a significant portion of APR to achieve successful SSO via mostly transabdominal approach and double-stapled anastomosis. The robot-assisted ISR with minimal invasiveness might be a help to reduce anorectal and urogenital dysfunctions.

The Role of Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Overcoming Technical Challenges in Laparoscopic Surgery by Advanced Techniques

The conventional laparoscopic approach to rectal surgery has several limitations, and therefore many colorectal surgeons have great expectations for the robotic surgical system as an alternative modality in overcoming challenges of laparoscopic surgery and thus enhancing oncologic and functional outcomes. This review explores the possibility of robotic surgery as an alternative approach in laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. The da Vinci® Surgical System was developed specifically to compensate for the technical limitations of laparoscopic instruments in rectal surgery. The robotic rectal surgery is associated with comparable or better oncologic and pathologic outcomes, as well as low morbidity and mortality. The robotic surgery is generally easier to learn than laparoscopic surgery, improving the probability of autonomic nerve preservation and genitourinary function recovery. Furthermore, in very complex procedures such as intersphincteric dissections and transabdominal transections of the levator muscle, the robotic approach is associated with increased performance and safety compared to laparoscopic surgery. The robotic surgery for rectal cancer is an advanced technique that may resolve the issues associated with laparoscopic surgery. However, high cost of robotic surgery must be addressed before it can become the new standard treatment.

Intersphincteric resection for treatment of ultra-low rectal cancer

Traditional treatment for ultra-low rectal cancer is abdominal perineal resection, but it is associated with poor quality of life. With the continued development of surgical techniques, intersphincteric resection has been greatly improved. Its unique advantages include improvement of sphincter preservation and anal function after surgery and no requirement of a permanent stoma. Although the ability of defecation control needs to be gradually restored, intersphincteric resection has similar postoperative survival rate, relapse rate and oncology results to abdominal perineal resection. Thus, intersphincteric resection should be the preferred treatment for ultra-low rectal cancer.