Low Hartmann's procedure or intersphincteric abdominoperineal resection in the primary treatment of low rectal cancer; a survey among surgeons evaluating current practice

Low Hartmann's procedure versus abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer, a propensity score matching cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare low Hartmann's procedure (LHP) with abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer (RC) regarding postoperative complications.

METHOD

RC patients receiving radical LHP or APR from 2015 to 2019 in our center were retrospectively enrolled. Patients' demographic and surgical information was collected and analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline information. The primary outcome was the incidence of major complications. All the statistical analysis was performed by SPSS 22.0 and R.

RESULTS

342 individuals were primarily included and 134 remained after PSM with a 1:2 ratio (50 in LHP and 84 in APR). Patients in the LHP group were associated with higher tumor height (P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the two groups for the incidence of major complications (6.0% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.290), and severe pelvic abscess (2% vs. 0%, P = 0.373). However, the occurrence rate of minor complications was significantly higher in the LHP group (52% vs. 21.4%, P < 0.001), and the difference mainly lay in abdominal wound infection (10% vs. 0%, P = 0.006) and bowel obstruction (16% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.028). LHP was not the independent risk factor of pelvic abscess in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrated a comparable incidence of major complications between LHP and APR. LHP was still a reliable alternative in selected RC patients when primary anastomosis was not recommended.

The complication profile of low Hartmann's in rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-restorative options for low rectal cancer not invading the sphincter includes low Hartmann's procedure (LH) and inter-sphincteric abdominoperineal resection (ISAPR). There is currently little comparative data to differentiate these options.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the peri-operative morbidity of LH, and then to compare it to that of ISAPR.

DATA SOURCES

An up-to-date systematic review was performed on the available literature between 2000-2020 on PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies reporting on non-restorative surgeries for rectal cancer were analysed. Outcomes were firstly analysed between LH and non-LH groups, with further sub-analysis comparing the LH and ISAPR groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The main outcome measures were the rates of pelvic sepsis, rates of overall post-operative complication rates, oncological outcomes, and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 12 observational studies were included. There were 3526 patients (61.1%) in the LH group, and 2238 patients (38.9%) in the non-LH group, which included 461 patients who underwent ISAPR. The LH group had a higher rate of pelvic sepsis as compared to the non-LH group (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.39-2.29, P < 0.001). The difference is more marked in the sub-analysis comparing LH and ISAPR alone (OR: 3.94, 95% CI: 1.88-7.84, P < 0.01) corresponding to a higher rate of unplanned re-intervention. LH was associated with a higher rate of short-term post-operative mortality as compared to the non-LH group.

CONCLUSION

ISAPR is the preferred option for non-restorative rectal surgery, with a more favourable peri-operative morbidity and short-term mortality profile as compared to LH.

Hartmann's procedure versus intersphincteric abdominoperineal excision (HiP Study): a multicentre prospective cohort study

AIM

In patients with low rectal cancer it is occasionally necessary to avoid a low coloanal anastomosis due to patient frailty or poor function. In such situations there are two alternative approaches: Hartmann's procedure (HP) or intersphincteric abdominoperineal excision (IAPE). There are few data to guide surgeons as to which of these two procedures is the safest. The aim of this study was to determine the surgical complication rates associated with each procedure.

METHOD

This was a multicentre, nonrandomized prospective cohort study of patients undergoing either HP or IAPE. The primary objective was to determine surgical complication rates. Secondary objectives included length of stay, time to adjuvant therapy and quality of life at 90 days.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy nine patients were recruited between April 2016 and June 2019; approximately two thirds of patients underwent HP and one third IAPE. The overall complication rate was high in both groups (54% for the HP group and 52% for the IAPE group). Surgery-specific complication rates were also high, but not significantly different: 43% for HP and 48% for IAPE. The pelvic abscess rate in HP was 11% and was significantly higher in patients with a palpable staple line (15% vs 2%). There was a higher incidence of serious medical complications following IAPE (16% vs 5%), along with a reduction in 90-day quality of life scores.

CONCLUSION

This is the largest prospective study to compare HP and IAPE in patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery where primary anastomosis is not deemed appropriate. With similar complication rates, these data support the ongoing use of either HP or IAPE in this patient group.