Abstract

Simple SummaryIntersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate anus-preserving surgical technique for very low-lying rectal cancers. The oncological safety of ISR has been frequently discussed, especially relatively to abdominoperineal resection. 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.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.

Highlights

  • The surgical management of low-lying rectal cancer (LRC), defined as tumors located within 4–5 cm from the anal verge (AV) or 2 cm above the dentate line (DL), is technically and oncologically challenging

  • This was named by Muro et al as the hiatal ligament (HL) according to a previous description from Shafik [22,31], it is sometimes traditionally classified as anococcygeal ligament by colorectal surgeons

  • In this study patients with post neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) clearance of external anal sphincter (EAS)/levator ani muscle (LAM) infiltration were indicated to Intersphincteric resection (ISR) independently to T stage if curative resection was considered technically feasible at the pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) staging [57]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The surgical management of low-lying rectal cancer (LRC), defined as tumors located within 4–5 cm from the anal verge (AV) or 2 cm above the dentate line (DL), is technically and oncologically challenging. The difficult aim is to obtain an oncologically safe resection within the narrow bony boundaries of the pelvis by sparing the anus with its functioning sphincter complex, optimizing the post-surgical quality of life. This is possible today thanks to several improvements in surgical techniques. The adoption of a multimodal treatment for rectal cancer with the development of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) protocols has furtherly improved the LR rate allowing tumor down-staging with up to 20% of complete response (depending on the waiting period) and possible improvement in sphincter preservation rate [10,11,12].

Anatomy of the Deep Pelvis
Posterior Anatomy
Anterior Anatomy
Lateral Anatomy
Definition of ISR
Indication of ISR
Distal Resection Margin and ISR
Circumferential Resection Margin and ISR
Neoadjuvant CRT and ISR
Surgical Approach
Risk Factors for Oncological Outcomes after ISR
11. Patterns of LR after ISR
12. Considerations on Functional Outcomes after ISR
13. Learning Curve and Surgical Education on ISR
14. Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call