Weaver DW, Eachempati SR. Laparoscopically assisted transsacral resection of rectal cancer with primary anastomosis. A preliminary review.
Surg Endosc 2000;
14:703-7. [PMID:
10954813 DOI:
10.1007/s004640020085]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The management of rectal cancer has been changing to include more sphincter-sparing procedures. We report our initial experience with a new technique incorporating laparoscopy and a transsacral approach for low or midlevel rectal cancer. Here, we tried to determine whether this sphincter-sparing method could produce acceptable morbidity and recurrence rates.
METHODS
Patients with rectal cancer 4 to 8 cm from the dentate line underwent laparoscopically-assisted transsacral resection (LTR) with primary anastomosis. With this technique, the rectosigmoid is mobilized via laparoscopy while the patient is in the supine position. Next, the patient is placed in the prone jackknife position, and a segment of rectum is resected by a transsacral approach. Age, estimated blood loss, length of time in the operating room, length of stay, and postoperative complications were noted. Aspects of the tumor pathology regarding stage, lymph nodes, tumor size, and presence of tumor at resection margins also were recorded.
RESULTS
A total of 13 patients, ages 26 to 70 years (mean, 52.5 years), underwent the procedure. No perioperative deaths occurred. The mean hospital stay was 9.6 days. The average size of the rectal lesion was 4.3 cm in the largest dimension. The average specimen contained 11.5 total, and 2.0 metastatic lymph nodes. Postoperative complications included two anastomotic breakdowns and two other wound complications. Late follow-up evaluation ranged from 10 to 30 months, with 11 of 13 patients alive (85% survival). Two local recurrences and three distant recurrences were noted at long-term follow-up assessment.
CONCLUSIONS
In selected patients with low or midlevel rectal cancer, LTR may be a viable option. Further experience is necessary to define its oncologic efficacy and whether routine temporary diverting colostomy is indicated.
Collapse