Precision functional sphincter-preserving surgery (PPS) for ultralow rectal cancer: a natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery technique

Colonic J-Pouch vs. straight colorectal reconstruction after anal preservation surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer: A prospective cohort study on quality of life and bowel function

BACKGROUND

Patients with ultra-low rectal cancer who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery are at high risk of poor anal function. Sphincter preservation in ultra-low rectal cancer poses significant challenges, and there is limited research exploring the impact of colonic J-pouch reconstruction on anal function in such patients. Given these challenges, the objective of this study was to assess the impact of colonic J-pouch reconstruction on quality of life and bowel function in patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer.

METHODS

From February 2023 to July 2024, 66 patients with ultra-low rectal cancer who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery were prospectively included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups based on anastomotic techniques: direct anastomosis group and colon J-Pouch group. Subsequently, postoperative complication statistics, anal function, and quality of life assessment were conducted. The LARS, Wexner, and Vaizey scales were used to evaluate anal function, while the FIQL scale assessed patients' quality of life at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery postoperatively. The Clavien-Dindo classification was used to assess postoperative complications. Differences in bowel function, quality of life, and complication rates between the 2 groups were analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the incidence of postoperative Clavien-Dindo II and above complications between the 2 groups (25% vs. 26.5%, P = .183). In terms of bowel function, the colonic J-pouch anastomosis demonstrated superior LARS scores at 1 month (29 vs. 32, P = .006), 3 months (23 vs. 29, P < .001), and 6 months postoperatively (20 vs. 25, P < .001). Similarly, regarding quality of life, patients in the colonic J-pouch group reported higher FIQL scores than those in the direct anastomosis group at 1 month postoperatively (84 vs. 71, P = .001), 3 months postoperatively (94 vs. 81, P = .007), and 6 months postoperatively (104 vs. 91, P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent colonic J-pouch reconstruction for ultra-low rectal cancer had enhanced functional and quality-of-life outcomes compared to straight colorectal anastomosis. More research is needed to explore the long-term implications of this approach.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial ultra-low rectal tumors: outcomes and predictive factors for procedure difficulty

BACKGROUND

Ultra-low rectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) presents technical challenges due to anatomical features. The objective of this research was to determine the risk factors linked to unsuccessful curative resections and to create a nomogram predictive model to assess the likelihood of encountering technical challenges.

METHODS

Patients with ultra-low rectal tumors received ESD form June 2017 to December 2022 were retrospectively enrolled. An ESD procedure exceeding 30 min was deemed difficult. A logistic regression analysis was performed to pinpoint important factors and predictors. The effectiveness of the nomogram, which incorporated the identified predictors, was evaluated by employing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis (DCA).

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients with ultra-low rectal tumors were enrolled, with a curative resection rate of 82.0%. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that poor lifting sign (OR = 3.282, P = 0.026), non-granular type laterally spreading tumors (LST-NG, OR = 2.230, P = 0.042) and procedure time ≥ 60 min (OR = 6.976, P = 0.010) contributed to non-curative resection. Predictors for ESD difficulty included tumor diameter ≥ 30 mm (compared with < 30 mm, 30-50 mm, OR = 2.450, P = 0.044; ≥ 50 mm, OR = 5.047, P = 0.009), ≥ 1/2 circumference involvement (OR = 3.183, P = 0.038); dentate line invasion (OR = 3.881, P = 0.026) and less colorectal ESD experience (OR = 3.415, P = 0.032). The nomogram performed well in both train and validation sets (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.873 and 0.810, respectively). Calibration plots exhibited satisfactory agreement between predicted and observed outcomes, and DCA showed superior clinical benefit of the model than individual predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor lifting sign, LST-NG and procedure time ≥ 60 min were associated with non-curative resection for ultra-low rectal ESD. By including factors such as tumor size, location, and the operator's experience with ESD, the nomogram can predict the complexity of the procedure before surgery.

Surgical effect and gastrointestinal functional recovery of laparoscopic-guided total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

To explore the surgical effect and gastrointestinal functional recovery of laparoscopic-guided total mesorectal excision (LGTME) in patients with rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 150 rectal cancer patients who underwent surgical treatment in our hospital from July 2022 to July 2023 were selected and randomly divided into two groups using a random number table. There were 75 cases in the control group (CG) who underwent traditional open rectal total mesorectal excision surgery and 75 cases in the experimental group (EG) who underwent LGTME. The surgical effects of the two groups were compared, and the gastrointestinal and anal functional recovery of the two groups were compared before and after treatment.

RESULTS

Intraoperative bleeding, incision length, time to initial feeding and time to anal exhaust in the EG were significantly lower than those in the CG ( P < 0.05). Before treatment, there was no significant difference in gastrointestinal function and anal function between the two groups ( P > 0.05). After treatment, the levels of motilin, gastrin, neuropeptide Y and basic fibroblast growth factor in the EG were significantly higher than those in the CG, with statistical significance ( P < 0.05); the maximum anal systolic pressure and resting anal sphincter pressure in the EG were significantly lower than those in the CG ( P < 0.05); the rectal sensitivity threshold volume (RSTV) and rectal maximum volume threshold in the EG were significantly higher than those in the CG ( P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in most postoperative complications between the two groups ( P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

LGTME improves the surgical effects of rectal cancer patients, promotes the recovery of gastrointestinal function and has a small effect on anal function indicators, thereby reducing hospital stay.

Safety and oncological outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery for right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is a new technique and uses natural orifice as the delivery route for specimen extraction to avoid supererogatory incision, and the safety and oncological outcomes of NOSES for right hemicolectomy are still inconclusive, so a meta-analysis was performed to compare these to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). Related literature comparing NOSES with CLS for right hemicolectomy, whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or retrospective studies, were systematically searched. A random-effect model or fixed-effect model was used based on the I² value. A total of six studies (all retrospective trials) involving 609 participants were included. Compared with CLS, NOSES was more preponderant than CLS in terms of surgical morbidity [odds ratio (OR) = 0.31; P = 0.0002], length of hospital stay [weighted mean difference (WMD) =  - 1.52; P = 0.006], time to first flatus (WMD =  - 0.82; P = 0.0008) and liquid intake (WMD =  - 1.40; P < 0.00001), pain score of POD1 (WMD =  - 1.99; P < 0.00001) and POD3 (WMD =  - 1.15; P = 0.02), and cosmetic result (WMD = 1.84; P < 0.00001), while operative time of NOSES was prolonged (WMD = 18.29; P = 0.04). The number of dissected lymph nodes, recurrence, and 3-year overall survival (3-year OS) in NOSES group were comparable to the CLS group. Despite the lack of enough evidence, NOSES for right hemicolectomy has demonstrated comparable safety and oncological outcomes as CLS with less postoperative morbidity and pain, better cosmetic effect, and rapider recovery.

Surgical Treatment of Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: Updates

Despite innovative advancements, distally located rectal cancer remains a critical disease of challenging management. The crucial location of the tumor predisposes it to a circumferential resection margin (CRM) that tends to involve the anal sphincter complex and surrounding organs, with a high incidence of delayed anastomotic complications and the risk of the pelvic sidewall or rarely inguinal lymph node metastases. In this regard, colorectal surgeons should be aware of other issues beyond total mesorectal excision (TME) performance. For decades, the concept of extralevator abdominoperineal resection to avoid compromised CRM has been introduced. However, the complexity of deep pelvic dissection with poor visualization in low-lying rectal cancer has led to transanal TME. In contrast, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) has allowed for the execution of more sphincter-saving procedures without oncologic compromise. Significant tumor regression after NCRT and complete pathologic response also permit applying the watch-and-wait protocol in some cases, now with more solid evidence. This review article will introduce the current surgical treatment options, their indication and technical details, and recent oncologic and functional outcomes. Lastly, the novel characteristics of distal rectal cancer, such as pelvic sidewall and inguinal lymph node metastases, will be discussed along with its tailored and individualized treatment approach.

Role of minimally invasive techniques in gastrointestinal surgery: Current status and future perspectives

In recent years, the incidence of gastrointestinal cancer has remained high. Currently, surgical resection is still the most effective method for treating gastrointestinal cancer. Traditionally, radical surgery depends on open surgery. However, traditional open surgery inflicts great trauma and is associated with a slow recovery. Minimally invasive surgery, which aims to reduce postoperative complications and accelerate postoperative recovery, has been rapidly developed in the last two decades; it is increasingly used in the field of gastrointestinal surgery and widely used in early-stage gastrointestinal cancer. Nevertheless, many operations for gastrointestinal cancer treatment are still performed by open surgery. One reason for this may be the challenges of minimally invasive technology, especially when operating in narrow spaces, such as within the pelvis or near the upper edge of the pancreas. Moreover, some of the current literature has questioned oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive surgery for gastrointestinal cancer. Overall, the current evidence suggests that minimally invasive techniques are safe and feasible in gastrointestinal cancer surgery, but most of the studies published in this field are retrospective studies and case-matched studies. Large-scale randomized prospective studies are needed to further support the application of minimally invasive surgery. In this review, we summarize several common minimally invasive methods used to treat gastrointestinal cancer and discuss the advances in the minimally invasive treatment of gastrointestinal cancer in detail.