[Clinical features and risk factors of surgical complications after intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy]

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.

When do defecation function and quality of life recover for patients with non-ostomy and ostomy surgery of rectal cancer?

Background

Rectal cancer (RC) surgery often results in permanent colostomy, seriously limiting the quality of life (QOL) in patients in terms of bowel function. This study aimed to examine defecation function and QOL in RC patients who underwent non-ostomy or ostomy surgery, at different time-points after surgery.

Methods

In total, 82 patients who underwent an ostomy and 141 who did not undergo an ostomy for the treatment of RC at our colorectal surgery department between January 2013 and January 2015 were enrolled. Surgical methods, tumor distance from the anal margin (TD), anastomosis distance from the anal margin (AD) and complications were compered between the non-ostomy and ostomy surgery groups. QOL was compared between the two groups at years 2, 3, and 4 after surgery. The Wexner score and the validated cancer-specific European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC QLQ-CR30) questionnaire scores were assessed for all patients in January 2017. SPSS 21.0 was utilized for all data analyses.

Results

Surgical methods, TD, and AD significantly differed between the non-ostomy and ostomy surgery groups (all P < .001). However, no differences were found in the number of complications between the groups (P = .483). For the 192 patients undergoing Dixon surgery, role function (RF), global QOL (GQOL), sleep disturbance, and the incidence of constipation showed significant differences between the two groups (P = .012, P = .025, P = .036, and P = .015, respectively). In the 31 cases of permanent ostomy, we observed significant differences in GQOL scores, dyspnea incidence, and financial difficulties across the different years (P = .002, P = .036, and P < .01, respectively). Across all 223 cases, there were significant differences in social function and GQOL scores in the second year after surgery (P = .014 and P < .001, respectively). However, no differences were observed in the other indices across the three time-points.

Conclusions

RC patients undergoing ostomy surgery, especially those with low and super-low RC, revealed poorer defecation function and QOL in the present study. However, 2 years after surgery, most of the defecation and QOL indicators showed recovery.