Oncologic outcomes of intersphincteric resection without preoperative chemoradiotherapy for very low rectal cancer. Surg Oncol. 2013;22:144-149. [PMID: 23591063 DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2013.03.003]

Intersphincteric resection for low-lying rectal cancer: analysis of risk factors and establishment of a preoperative assessment system for postoperative anal function

PURPOSE

In recent years, intersphincteric resection has increasingly become a viable alternative to abdominoperineal resection due to its significant preservation of the anus. Previous studies have indicated that intersphincteric resection has provides comparable oncological outcomes to APR, but anal incontinence remains a common postoperative complication. we reassessed identify preoperatively controllable and measurable risk factors that may affect anal function following intersphincteric resection, and to attempt to construct a preoperative risk assessment system for anal function after intersphincteric resection, thereby standardizing intersphincteric resection treatment for low rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included 51 patients who underwent intersphincteric resection surgery between January 2018 and March 2023 and maintained autonomous defecation for one year or more were selected. Using Independent samples t-test, rank-sum test, Fisher's exact test, and linear regression, we analyzed anal function at 12 months postoperatively and the clinical factors influencing it. Construction of a postoperative fecal incontinence risk assessment scale for ISR based on standardized coefficients in multifactorial linear regression.

RESULTS

Age, clinical T stage, preoperative puborectalis muscle thickness, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy were identified as independent factors affecting postoperative anal function.

CONCLUSIONS

Older age, higher clinical T stage, thinner preoperative puborectalis muscle thickness, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy are associated with poorer postoperative anal function. Patients with 0-1 high-risk factors can be recommended for intersphincteric resection treatment; those with 3 high-risk factors should not undergo intersphincteric resection; and patients with 2 high-risk factors should have a thorough discussion regarding the potential risks before a cautious surgical decision is made.

Oncologic outcomes of intersphincteric resection versus abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of intersphincteric resection (ISR) surgery for patients with lower rectal cancer remains unclear compared to abdominoperineal resection (APR). The aim of this study is to compare the oncologic outcomes for lower rectal cancer patients after ISR and APR through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic electronic search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE was performed through January 12, 2022. The primary outcomes included 5-year disease-free survival (5y-DFS) and 5-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes included circumferential resection margin involvement, local recurrence, perioperative outcomes, and other long-term outcomes. The pooled odds ratios, mean difference, or hazard ratios (HRs) of each outcome measurement and their 95% CIs were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 20 nonrandomized controlled studies were included in the qualitative analysis, with 1217 patients who underwent ISR and 1135 patients who underwent APR. There was no significant difference in 5y-DFS (HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.55-1.29; P =0.43) and 5-year overall survival (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.60-1.46; P =0.76) between the two groups. Using the results of five studies that reported matched T stage and tumor distance, we performed another pooled analysis. Compared to APR, the ISR group had equal 5y-DFS (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.45-1.30; P =0.31) and 5y-LRFS (local recurrence-free survival) (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.29-1.78; P =0.48). Meanwhile, ISR had equivalent local control as well as perioperative outcomes while significantly reducing the operative time (mean difference: -24.89, 95% CI: -45.21 to -4.57; P =0.02) compared to APR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the long-term survival and safety of patients is not affected by ISR surgery, although this result needs to be carefully considered and requires further study due to the risk of bias and limited data.

Clinical efficacy and pathological outcomes of transanal endoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Transanal endoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR) surgery currently lacks sufficient clinical research and reporting.

AIM

To investigate the clinical effectiveness of transanal endoscopic ISR, in order to promote the clinical application and development of this technique.

METHODS

This study utilized a retrospective case series design. Clinical and pathological data of patients with lower rectal cancer who underwent transanal endoscopic ISR at the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University between May 2018 and May 2023 were included. All patients underwent transanal endoscopic ISR as the surgical approach. We conducted this study to determine the perioperative recovery status, postoperative complications, and pathological specimen characteristics of this group of patients.

RESULTS

This study included 45 eligible patients, with no perioperative mortalities. The overall incidence of early complications was 22.22%, with a rate of 4.44% for Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III events. Two patients (4.4%) developed anastomotic leakage after surgery, including one case of grade A and one case of grade B. Postoperative pathological examination confirmed negative circumferential resection margins and distal resection margins in all patients. The mean distance between the tumor lower margin and distal resection margin was found to be 2.30 ± 0.62 cm. The transanal endoscopic ISR procedure consistently yielded high quality pathological specimens.

CONCLUSION

Transanal endoscopic ISR is safe, feasible, and provides a clear anatomical view. It is associated with a low incidence of postoperative complications and favorable pathological outcomes, making it worth further research and application.

Revolutionizing sphincter preservation in ultra-low rectal cancer: exploring the potential of transanal endoscopic intersphincteric resection (taE-ISR): a propensity score-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

With the optimization of neoadjuvant treatment regimens, the indications for intersphincteric resection (ISR) have expanded. However, limitations such as unclear surgical field, impaired anal function, and failure of anal preservation still exist. Transanal total mesorectal excision can complement the drawbacks of ISR. Therefore, this study combined these two techniques and proposed transanal endoscopic intersphincteric resection (taE-ISR), aiming to explore the value of this novel technique in anal preservation for ultra-low rectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four high-volume centres were involved. After 1:1 propensity score-matching, patients with ultra-low rectal cancer underwent taE-ISR ( n =90) or ISR ( n =90) were included. Baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes, pathological results, and follow-up were compared between the two groups. A nomogram model was established to assess the potential risks of anal preservation.

RESULTS

The incidence of adjacent organ injury (0.0% vs. 5.6%, P =0.059), positive distal resection margin (1.1% vs. 8.9%, P =0.034), and incomplete specimen (2.2% vs. 13.3%, P =0.012) were lower in taE-ISR group. Moreover, the anal preservation rate was significantly higher in taE-ISR group (97.8% vs. 82.2%, P =0.001). Patients in the taE-ISR group showed a better disease-free survival ( P =0.044) and lower cumulative recurrence ( P =0.022) compared to the ISR group. Surgery procedure, tumour distance, and adjacent organ injury were factors influencing anal preservation in patients with ultra-low rectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

taE-ISR technique was safe, feasible, and improved surgical quality, anal preservation rate and survival outcomes in ultra-low rectal cancer patients. It held significant clinical value and showed promising application prospects for anal preservation.

Conformal sphincteric resection for ultra-low rectal cancer located below the dentate line: A pilot report

AIM

Sphincter-sparing surgery can be achieved in most cases of low rectal cancer with the development of intersphincteric resection. However, abdominoperineal resection is still inevitable for patients with tumours located below the dentate line. To address this, we have developed a procedure called conformal sphincteric resection (CSR) in which the corresponding part of the subcutaneous portion of the external anal sphincter and the perianal skin on the tumour side is removed to achieve a safe distal resection margin and lateral resection margin while the dentate line and the internal anal sphincter on the tumour-free side are preserved as much as possible, to achieve sphincter preservation without compromising oncological safety and functional acceptability, and to render tumour location no longer a contraindication for sphincter-sparing surgery. This is the first study to describe the concept, indication and surgical procedure of CSR and to report its preliminary surgical, oncological and functional results.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, single-centre, single-arm pilot study conducted at Huashan Hospital, Fudan University. Demographic, clinicopathological, oncological and functional follow-up data were collected from 20 consecutive patients with rectal tumours located below the dentate line who underwent laparoscopic CSR by the same surgical team from June 2018 to March 2022.

RESULTS

The mean distance of the tumour's lower edge from the anal verge was 13.1 ± 6.0 mm. The mean distal resection margin was 10.6 ± 4.3 mm. All circumferential resection margins were negative. There were no instances of perioperative mortality. The complication rate was 25% but all were Clavien-Dindo Grade I. Among the 20 cases, 17 were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma, one with squamous cell carcinoma and two with adenoma featuring high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. Pathological TNM staging revealed two, seven, five, five and one case(s) in Stages 0, I, II, III and IV, respectively. The median follow-up period was 20 months (interquartile range 22 months), with no withdrawals. The overall and disease-free survival rates were both 95%. The mean Wexner incontinence score and low anterior resection syndrome score recorded 18 months following diverting ileostomy closure were 6.3 ± 3.8 and 27.3 ± 3.6, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has proposed the CSR procedure for the first time, which is a technically feasible, oncologically safe and functionally acceptable procedure for carefully selected patients with rectal tumours located below the dentate line.

An anatomical study on intersphincteric space related to intersphincteric resection for ultra-low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been proposed to offer sphincter-sparing solution for patients with ultra-low rectal cancer. However, complete and accurate concepts about the intersphincteric space (ISS) related anatomy are not demonstrated clearly. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive description about the anatomic structure of ISS related to ISR.

METHODS

This was a descriptive morphological study. 28 pelvic specimens were obtained from body donors. Macroscopic and microscopic observation of ISS was performed via gross anatomy, plastinated sections and histologic staining. The anatomical parameters of the anal canal were measured. Images of laparoscopic ISS dissection procedures were real-timely captured during ISR.

RESULTS

The hiatal ligament, microvessels on supra fascia of LAM and rectal longitudinal muscle at the level of anorectal ring, especially at 1, 5, 7, and 11o'clock, could be the preferred entrance of ISS. The conjoint longitudinal muscle (CLM), the major component of ISS, was the continuum of the rectal longitudinal muscle and got reinforcement from the elastic fibers from LAM and EAS. Microvessels and neuro tissues were also found in ISS. The ISS was split into two spaces by the CLM in the middle and might subjectively be divided into three segments according to its different compositions. The length and width of ISS varied from different segments and directions.

CONCLUSIONS

We provided a systemic description of boundaries, contents and topographic structure of ISS, which may help proper determination of surgical approaches and dissection planes during ISR.

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.

A Retrospective Study on the Feasibility of Completely Laparoscopic Transabdominal Approach Partial Intersphincteric Resection

Background: With the development of surgical techniques, gastrointestinal surgeons seek ways to improve the quality of life (QOL) for postoperative patients, while ensuring the tumor radical effect, such as reducing trauma, alleviating pain, and preserving the anus. This article discusses the postoperative outcomes of completely laparoscopic transabdominal approach partial intersphincteric resection (CLTPISR). Materials and Methods: The clinical data of 68 patients who underwent CLTPISR at the Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical College between May 2017 and June 2020, including procedure-related data, general postoperative conditions, and postoperative anal function data, were retrospectively analyzed to investigate the feasibility and safety of CLTPISR. Results: All 68 rectal cancer patients completed the CLTPISR. The average age was (60.47 ± 7.08) years, the average operative time was (196.22 ± 8.15) minutes, the mean operative bleeding was (49.12 ± 29.61) mL, and the average postoperative hospital stay was (13.46 ± 4.78) days. The postoperative pathology showed that the circumferential margins and distal margins were all negative, the maximum tumor diameter was (3.26 ± 1.11) cm, the distance from the anal verge was (3.92 ± 0.89) cm, and the average number of lymph nodes cleared was (11.06 ± 3.67). There were 28 stage I patients (41.18%), 21 stage II patients (30.88%), and 19 stage III patients (27.94%). The median follow-up time after surgery was 28 months, and the rates of distant metastasis, disease-free survival, and overall survival of the patients were 8.82%, 91.18%, and 95.59%, respectively. The patient's postoperative anal function gradually recovered as time increased. Conclusions: Under the premise of strictly grasping the indications, the CLTPISR is a safe and feasible surgery. It could achieve maximum anal preservation and improve patients' QOL, while maintaining the tumor radical effect, and had the advantages of the short operation time, low intraoperative bleeding, and quick recovery. The Clinical Trial Registration number is LL2020397.

Functional outcome and quality of life following treatment for rectal cancer

Introduction Over the last decades, treatment for rectal cancer has substantially improved with development of new surgical options and treatment modalities. With the improvement of survival, functional outcome and quality of life are getting more attention.

Study objective To provide an overview of current modalities in rectal cancer treatment, with particular emphasis on functional outcomes and quality of life.

Results Functional outcomes after rectal cancer treatment are influenced by patient and tumor characteristics, surgical technique, the use of preoperative radiotherapy and the method and level of anastomosis. Sphincter preserving surgery for low rectal cancer often results in poor functional outcomes that impair quality of life, referred to as low anterior resection syndrome. Abdominoperineal resection imposes the need for a permanent stoma but avoids the risk of this syndrome. Contrary to general belief, long-term quality of life in patients with a permanent stoma is similar to those after sphincter preserving surgery for low rectal cancer.

Conclusion All patients should be informed about the risks of treatment modalities. Decision on rectal cancer treatment should be individualized since not all patients may benefit from a sphincter preserving surgery “at any price”. Non-resection treatment should be the future focus to avoid the need of a permanent stoma and bowel dysfunction.

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.

Ultimate Functional Preservation With Intersphincteric Resection for Rectal Cancer

The proximity of the very low rectum rectal cancer to the anal sphincter raises a specific problem: how and until when can we preserve the anal continence without compromising the oncological result of the tumor resection? In this situation, intersphincteric resection (ISR) offers an excellent alternative to abdominoperineal resection (APR), but the selection of patients for this option must be extremely precise. This complex choice justifies the simultaneous consideration of an oncological approach with a functional approach in order to provide a full benefit to the patient. When a circumferential resection margin of at least 1 mm can be performed with a distal resection margin of at least 1 cm with or without preoperative radiotherapy, ISR ensures a safety choice. The oncological results of ISR reported in the literature when performed properly found a 5-year disease-free survival of 80.2% with a local recurrence rate of only 5.8%. In parallel to this oncological evaluation, the expected post-operative functional outcome and the resulting quality of life must be properly assessed pre-operatively, since partial or total resection of the internal sphincter impacts significantly on the functional outcome. Based on data from the literature, this work reports the essential anatomical considerations and then the oncological and functional elements indispensables when an anal continence preservation is evoked for a tumor of the very low rectum. Finally, the precise selection criteria and the major surgical principles are outlined in order to guarantee the safety of this modern choice for the patient.

Local excision following chemoradiotherapy in T2-T3 rectal cancer: current status and critical appraisal

Local excision following chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer is an organ-preserving procedure which aims at reducing morbidity and functional disorders associated with total mesorectal excision (TME) in selected patients. Although TME after chemoradiotherapy remains the gold standard for locally advanced mid and low rectal cancer, in the last years multicenter research trials have offered encouraging oncologic results which have allowed to preserve the rectum in patients with a pathologic complete response after chemoradiotherapy. A review of the available literature on this topic was conducted to define the state of the art of this conservative approach and to focus on the most controversial aspects concerning local excision performed after chemoradiotherapy, in particular tumor scatter and lymph node status, completion and salvage surgery, morbidity and quality of life. The analysis of these topics should be considered, in trial setting or in current practice, for their clinical implications. Oncologic outcomes of recent trials are encouraging for part of the patients presenting T2 rectal cancer; however, TME still remains the standard treatment in clinical practice. In such cases, local excision should include a surgical safety margin of at least 1 cm from the resection margin to achieve a true negative margin from residual tumor cells. The selection of the patients should be carefully performed and their consensus extremely detailed because TME is necessary in about 30% of cases. Failing that, morbidity and quality of life are negatively affected. However, about half of these patients refuse radical surgery (45%), thus undergoing only palliative care.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Approach for Intersphincteric Resection-Results from a Tertiary Cancer Center in India

The study aims to compare open intersphincteric resection (OISR) with laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (LISR) in terms of short-term oncological and clinical outcomes. This is a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database including all the patients of rectal cancer who underwent intersphincteric resection (ISR) at Tata Memorial Centre between 1st July 2013 and 30th November 2015. Short-term oncological parameters evaluated included circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM), distal resection margin involvement, and number of nodes harvested. Perioperative outcomes included blood loss, length of hospital stay and 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality. Chi-square test was used to compare the results between the two groups. Thirty nine cases of OISR and 34 cases of LISR were included in the study. Median BMI was higher in LISR group; otherwise, the two groups were comparable in all aspects. There were no conversions in LISR group. CRM involvement was seen in four patients (10%) in the conventional group compared to none in the LISR group. Median hospital stay was comparable between the two groups. Laparoscopic ISR is safe and can be performed with low conversion rate in selected group of patients.

Intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: A review of the updated literature

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) has rapidly increased worldwide including laparoscopic surgery. However, there are some concerns for the definition of ISR, surgical technique, oncological outcome, anal function, and quality of life (QoL). The aim of the present study is to evaluate those issues. A review of this surgical technique was carried out by searching English language literature of the PubMed online database and appropriate articles were identified. With regard to open‐ISR, the morbidity rate ranged from 7.5% to 38.3%, with lower mortality rates. Local recurrence rates varied widely from 0% to 22.7%, with a mean follow‐up duration of 40–94 months. Disease‐free and overall 5‐year survival rates were 68–86% and 76–97%, respectively. Those outcomes were equivalent to laparoscopic‐ISR. Surgical and oncological outcomes of ISR were generally acceptable. However, accurate evaluation of anal function and QoL was difficult because of a lack of standard assessment of various patient‐related factors. The surgical and oncological outcomes after ISR seem to be acceptable. The ISR technique seems to be valid as an alternative to abdominoperineal resection in selected patients with a very low rectal cancer. However, both necessity for ISR and expectations of QoL impairment as a result of functional disorder should be fully discussed with patients before surgery.

Shifting Paradigms in Minimally Invasive Surgery: Applications of Transanal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Surgery

Since the advent of laparoscopy, minimally invasive techniques such as single port laparoscopy, robotics, endoscopically assisted laparoscopy, and transanal endoscopic surgery continue to revolutionize the field of colorectal surgery. Transanal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) represents a further paradigm shift by combining the advantages of these earlier techniques to reduce the size and number of abdominal incisions and potentially optimize rectal dissection, especially with respect to performance of an oncologically adequate total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Since the first experimental report of transanal rectosigmoid resection in 2007, the potential impact of transanal NOTES in colorectal surgery has been extensively investigated in experimental models and recently transitioned to clinical application. There have been 14 clinical trials of transanal TME (taTME) for rectal cancer that have demonstrated the feasibility and preliminary oncologic safety of this approach in carefully selected patients, with results comparable to outcomes after laparoscopic and open TME, including cumulative intraoperative and postoperative complication rates of 5.5 and 35.5%, respectively, 97.3% rate of complete or near-complete specimens, and 93.6% rate of negative margins. Transanal NOTES has also been safely applied to proctectomy and colectomy for benign indications. The consensus among published series suggests that taTME is most safely performed with transabdominal assistance by surgeons experienced with laparoscopic TME, transanal endoscopic surgery, and sphincter-preserving techniques including intersphincteric resection. Future applications of transanal NOTES may include evolution to a pure endoscopic transanal approach for TME, colectomy, and sentinel lymph node biopsy for rectal cancer, with a potential role for robotic assistance.

Intersphincteric resection and hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer: Short-term outcomes in the Indian setting

INTRODUCTION

The rectum remains a predominant subsite of colorectal cancer in the Indian population. Unique to the Indian setting are significant social repercussions associated with a permanent stoma. On account of this, many patients who are advised abdominal perineal excision of the rectum (APER) default treatment. Accurate demonstration of the intersphincteric plane with magnetic resonance imaging has made intersphincteric resection (ISR) a viable option. This study is aimed at determining the feasibility and oncological adequacy of ISR in the Indian scenario.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients with low rectal cancer who underwent an ISR at the Tata Memorial Centre, from July 2013 to December 2013 were included. Patients with invasion of the external sphincter and suboptimal preoperative sphincter function were excluded. Following standard preoperative staging, patients with a threatened circumferential resection margin (CRM) and/or mesorectal nodes were given preoperative chemoradiotherapy. The oncological adequacy of the procedure was evaluated in terms of margin positivity (distal and CRMs) and lymph node yield. Short-term perioperative outcomes included 30-day mortality, postoperative morbidity, anastomotic leaks, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients with low rectal cancer and a median age of 38 years underwent ISR during the defined study period. Twenty-three patients (70 %) underwent open surgery whereas ten patients received a laparoscopic resection. The median blood loss and hospital stay was 300 mL and 7 days, respectively. Two patients had an involved CRM, but all distal margins were free of tumor. The quality of total mesorectal excision was satisfactory in all patients with a median lymph node yield of 9 nodes.

CONCLUSIONS

Intersphincteric resection is feasible and oncologically safe in selected patients with low rectal cancer. Long-term functional and oncological outcomes are essential before it can be considered a viable alternative to APER.

What should we intend for minimally invasive treatment of colorectal cancer?

Non-inferiority of laparoscopic treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials although operative and perioperative management varies widely among centers. Literature data in English language published up to April 15, 2014 were analyzed in order to give an up to date analysis that would highlights the key aspects of a modern and factual minimally invasive treatment of CRC. Laparoscopic resection is the first choice treatment of colon cancer. Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer should be considered an investigational procedure to be performed in high volume centers with special interest in laparoscopy and colorectal surgery. Less invasive approaches should be taken into account with the aim of reducing surgical stress. The adoption of ERAS programs has demonstrated to optimize short-term results. Future research should be directed to prove possible long-term advantages, in terms of overall and disease-free survival, of minimally invasive treatment of CRC.

Evaluation of the frequency and pattern of local recurrence following intersphincteric resection for ultra-low rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Abdomino-perineal resection has been the standard treatment for rectal tumors located ≤5cm from the anal verge. Recently, intersphincteric resection became a valid option which preserves the bowel continuity with better functional outcome.

AIM

Is to evaluate the oncological and functional outcome alongside the associated surgical morbidity in patients with T1-3 rectal cancer, who underwent intersphincteric resection (ISR).

PATIENTS & METHODS

Between the years 2006 and 2011, 55 patients with invasive rectal adenocarcinoma, T1-3 lesions, located 2-5cm from the anal verge underwent ISR with total mesorectal excision. When inevitable, complete. ISR was performed, otherwise partial ISR was done. All T3 patients underwent total meso-rectal excision (TME) while some had lateral lymph node dissection (LND) with concomitant pelvic autonomic nerve preservation (PANP).

RESULTS

Among the 55 patients, 21 (38.1%) patients were T1-2 and 34 (61.9%) patients were T3. The tumor location range was 0-5cm from the anal verge (median 2.3cm). Partial or complete ISR was done for 35 (63.6%) and 20 (36.4%), respectively. Patients were followed for a median of 1.5 years (range 1-4.6 years). The 3 year local recurrence and distant metastasis free rates were 85.2% and 85.6%, respectively. All the 3 local recurrences occurred in T3 patients group, and had positive circumferential resection margins. Overall 3-year disease-free survival was 82.6%; while the overall 3-year survival was 88.7%.

CONCLUSION

Intersphincteric resection with TME does not affect the local recurrence or overall survival rate in early rectal cancer T1-2 & 3, with preservation of bowel continuity and better life quality.

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.

Technical tips for intersphincteric resection: how to take out the rectum

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is an ideal technique that preserves the anus, regardless of whether the internal anal sphincter is removed. However, it is difficult to dissect the anterior wall of the rectum from the adjacent organs. We herein describe a safe and useful ISR technique which draws out the rectum through the anus. The intersphincteric space (ISS) between the internal and external anal sphincter muscles was first transabdominally dissected. Next, the transanal dissection was advanced into the ISS bilaterally from the posterior side without dissecting the anterior wall of the anal canal, and the sigmoid colon and rectum were drawn out through the anus. Dissection between the anterior wall of the rectum and prostate/vagina could be easily performed under direct vision. This technique enables the dissection without any risk of a positive surgical margin or unexpected bleeding, and avoids injury to adjacent organs. This technique seems to be a safe and useful dissection technique for approaching the anterior wall of the anal canal.