Laparoscopic Rectal Cancer Resection Research Articles

Clinical efficacy of different approaches for laparoscopic intersphincteric resection of low rectal cancer: a comparison study

BackgroundThe operative results of different approaches for the laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (LAISR) of low rectal cancer vary, and the patient characteristics associated with the best outcomes for each procedure have not been reported. We compared the efficacy of different approaches for LAISR of low rectal cancer and discussed the surgical indications for each approach.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed data from 235 patients with low rectal cancer treated via LAISR from October 2010 to September 2016. Patients underwent either the transabdominal approach for ISR (TAISR, n = 142), the transabdominal perineal approach for ISR (TPAISR, n = 57), or the transanal pull-through approach for ISR (PAISR, n = 36).ResultsThe PAISR and TAISR groups exhibited shorter operation times and less intraoperative blood loss than the TPAISR group. The anastomotic distance was shorter in the PAISR and TPAISR groups than in the TAISR group. No differences in the ability to perform radical resection, overall complications, postoperative recovery, Wexner score recorded 12 months after ostomy closure, 3-year disease-free survival, local recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, or overall survival (OS) were observed among the three groups.ConclusionsTAISR, TPAISR, and PAISR have unique advantages and do not differ in terms of operation safety, patient outcomes, or anal function. TPAISR requires a longer time to complete and is associated with more bleeding and a slower recovery of anal function. PAISR should be considered when TAISR cannot ensure a negative distal margin and the tumor and BMI are relatively small; otherwise, TPAISR is required.

Quadratus Lumborum Block versus Transversus Abdominis Plane Block for Laparoscopic Radical Resection for Rectal Cancer

Background: Both transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) and quadratus lumborum block (QLB) can provide effective analgesia for abdominal surgery. Objectives: To explore whether there are differences in the effects of TAPB and QLB on the quality of postoperative recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection for rectal cancer. Methods: In total, 102 patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection for rectal cancer were randomly divided into two groups. Bilateral TAPB or QLB was performed using 0.375% ropivacaine after the induction of anesthesia. The 15-item Quality of Recovery (QoR-15) scale was used to assess the quality of recovery at 24 h postoperatively. Secondary indicators included 24-h postoperative fentanyl consumption, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), incidence of adverse reactions, numerical rating scale (NRS) at rest and during exercise, and incidence of postoperative complications. Results: QoR-15 scores were higher in the QLB group than in the TAPB group (115.6±11.3 vs. 99.7±14.2, P<0.05). Moreover, the 24-h sufentanil consumption was less in the QLB group than in the TAPB group (2.4±0.5 vs. 5.5±0.3 μg, P<0.05) after surgery. Time durations to first postoperative PCA compression were 152.1±28.4 and 100.3 ± 22.9 min, respectively (P<0.05). The numbers of PCA compressions within 24 h after surgery were 6.0 (2.0, 8.0) and 9.0 (3.0, 12.0) (P<0.05). There were no differences in secondary outcomes, such as adverse reactions, NRS scores at rest and exercise at 24 h postoperatively, as well as complication rates. Conclusion: Patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection for rectal cancer with QLB had a better quality of recovery and better analgesic effects at 24 h postoperatively, compared to TAPB

Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic distal rectal transection by transanterior obturator nerve gateway

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of distal rectal transection by using transanterior obturator nerve gateway (TANG) in laparoscopic radical resection for lower rectal cancers. Methods: A descriptive case series study was performed. Inclusion criteria: (1) patients with primary rectal adenocarcinoma, with the distance of 3-5 cm from tumor to anal verge, with normal anal function before surgery and a desire to preserve anus; (2) laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer was performed and the distal rectum was transected using TANG approach. Exclusion criteria: (1) patients with distant metastasis or receiving palliative surgery; (2) the distal rectum was transected using non-TANG approach; (3) patients receiving combined multiple organs resection; (4) patients complicated with other tumors requiring additional treatment during the study. Clinicopathological data of 50 patients with low rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic resection using TANG approach between January 2019 and December 2020 in Peking University First Hospital were retrospectively collected. Perioperative conditions, length of specific pelvic lines, additional angle and postoperative short-term outcomes were observed and described. Additional angle was defined as the angle between the simulated stapling line with the traditional approach and the real stapling line with the TANG approach. Data following normal distribution were presented as Mean±SD, or M [quartile range (Q(R))] otherwise. Results: All the patients successfully completed laparoscopic surgery without transferring to open or transanal surgery. The median operative time was 193 (80) min and blood loss was 50 (58) ml. All tumors received R0 resection with the distance from the tumor to distal resection margin of 1.7 (0.4) cm and the anastomotic height of 2.0 (0.1) cm. Rectal transection was completed by one cartridge in 52.0% of the cases (26/50) and two cartridges in 48.0% (24/50). Length of the stapling line was 6.6 (1.5) cm. The time to construct the gateway was 8.0 (6.0) min. The vessel damage occurred in 4.0% of the cases (2/50) and none of the cases encountered obturator nerve damage. Inlets of the pelvis in TANG and traditional approach were (9.9±1.3) cm vs. (7.2±1.1) cm (t=24.781, P<0.001). Additional angle of TANG was (15±2) °. The transecting positions on the midline and right edge of the rectum specimen by TANG were 0.6 (0.2) cm and 1.0 (0.2) cm lower than those by the traditional approach. One case (2.0%) died of pulmonary infection on the 17th day after surgery, 2 cases (4.0%) received re-operation and 14 cases (28.0%) had postoperative complications, including anastomotic leakage (7/50, 14.0%), urinary retention (6/50, 12.0%), pelvic infection (2/50, 4.0%) and ileus (2/50, 4.0%). The median postoperative hospital stay was 12 (6) days. Conclusions: Laparoscopic distal rectal transection by using TANG approach is safe and effective in the treatment of low rectal cancer. As an alternative rectal transecting method, TANG has advantages especially for the obese and those with a contracted pelvis and ultralow rectal cancers.

Two-step lifting method using the Wang Intestinal Strap for laparoscopic radical resection of mid-low rectal cancer (with video).

Two-step lifting method using the Wang Intestinal Strap for laparoscopic radical resection of mid-low rectal cancer (with video).

Efficacy of the Intraoperative Use of Indocyanine-Green Fluorescence Angiography in Laparoscopic Rectal Resections

Background: In traditional laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery, the surgeon’s method assess intestinal stumps blood supply is subject to certain subjectivity and blindness. Indocyanine green (ICG) real-time blood perfusion fluorescence angiography in laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer has great potential clinical value and can visually judge intestinal tract blood supply to improve the surgery safety, reduce postoperative complications, and ensure the recovery of patients after surgery. Objective: To explore the efficacy of the intraoperative use of indocyanine-green fluorescence angiography in laparoscopic rectal resections in patients with rectal cancer. Methods: In the present study, 109 rectal cancer patients were included and assigned to different surgical groups [ICG and control groups] for analysis. Statistical analysis was carried out for various common postoperative complications in the two groups. Finally, the patients in the ICG fluorescence imaging group had a timely adjustment of the proximal resection of the intestinal tube before the proximal bowel of the lesion was cut off when the intestinal blood supply was insufficiently assessed by fluorescence imaging. Two subgroups, the adjustment and the non-adjustment groups, were analyzed. Results: Compared with the control group, the postoperative anal ventilation time in the ICG group was shorter than that in the control group (P 0.05). In addition, the postoperative complications were lower than those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P 0.05). However, the distance between the tumor from the anal verge in the adjustment group was smaller than that in the non-adjustment group, and the difference was statistically significant (P 0.01). Conclusion: Compared with conventional laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer, ICG real-time indocyanine green fluore- scence angiography was safe and feasible. This technique is a promising intraoperative tool for the assessment of bowel perfusion especially suitable for patients with lower rectal cancer.

Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Model to Predict Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Following Laparoscopic Anterior Resection of Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Study

Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Model to Predict Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Following Laparoscopic Anterior Resection of Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Study

Laparoscopic versus open surgery in the treatment of colorectal cancer

Because of the initial case study results suggesting high recurrence rates at port sites, adoption of the laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer treatment was slow. Surgical resection remains the cornerstone and most important facet in management of colon cancer. The use of minimally invasive approach in colorectal surgery has been reported by several authors in the literature. Some difficult about the use of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer still raises, particularly with the technique’s complexity, learning curve and longer duration. Scientific literature published from January 2010 to April 2020 was reviewed. Phase III randomized clinical trials were included. Analysis of the scientific literatures confirmed that for the curative treatment of colon and rectal cancer, laparoscopy is not inferior to open surgery with respect to overall survival, disease-free survival and rate of recurrence. Laparoscopic resection can be considered an option for the curative treatment of colon and rectal cancer; but must take into consideration surgeon experience, tumour stage and potential contraindications; and that laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer be performed only by appropriately trained surgeons.

Effect of peritoneum reconstruction on postoperative complications after laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer

Objective: To determine the effect of peritoneum reconstruction on postoperative complications after laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer. Methods: Retrospective cohort study and propensity score matching were conducted. Case inclusion criteria: (1) pathologically confirmed rectal adenocarcinoma; (2) 18 to 80 years; (3) patients with middle to low rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic LAR; (4) patients staging cT1-4aN0-2M0 or ycT1-4aN0-2M0 after neoadjuvant therapy; (5) the distance of 4-10 cm from tumor low margin to anal verge. Exclusion criteria: (1) abdominal surgery history (except appendicitis, cholecystitis, ectopic pregnancy); (2) anastomosis above the peritoneal reflection; (3) tumor distant metastasis or clinical staging of T4b during surgery; (4) conversion to open surgery; (5) severe incapacitating disease (American Society of Anesthesiologists classification IV or V, ASA). A total of 666 patients with middle to low rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic LAR in The First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University from January 2017 to June 2020 were enrolled. There were 473 males and 193 females with the median age of 59 (18-80) years. Laparoscopic LAR with peritoneum reconstruction was performed in 188 cases (PR group), and laparoscopic LAR without peritoneum reconstruction was performed in 478 cases (NPR group). After 1:1 propensity score matching according to 1:1 based on age, gender, body mass index, TNM staging, ASA classification, intraoperative blood loss, distance from tumor low margin to anal edge, 153 cases were included in each group. Postoperative complications were classified according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Anastomotic leakage was defined and graded according to the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer (ISGRC) criteria. Results: After propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in baseline demographic characteristics between the 2 groups (all P>0.05), indicating that these two groups were comparable. (1) Operative conditions: All the patients in both groups completed operation successfully. Compared with the NPR group, the PR group had longer operation time [(181.3±60.3) minutes vs. (168.9±51.5) minutes, t=2.185, P=0.029], shorter postoperative median hospital stay [8 (7, 10) days vs. 9 (7, 11) days, Z=-2.282, P=0.022], and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). (2) Postoperative complications: The overall morbidity of postoperative complication in PR group and NPR group was 20.3% (31/153) and 24.2% (37/153) respectively, and the incidence of anastomotic leakage was 9.8% (15/153) and 11.1%(17/153) respectively, whose differences were not statistically significant (both P>0.05). Compared with NPR group, PR group had lower morbidity of grade III to IV complications [3.9% (6/153) vs. 11.1% (17/153), χ(2)=5.688, P=0.017] and lower secondary operation rate [1.3% (2/153) vs. 5.9% (9/153), χ(2)=4.621, P=0.032], the differences were statistically significant (both P<0.05). Though PR group had lower incidence of grade C anastomoic leakage [1.3% (2/153) vs. 3.9% (6/153), χ(2)=2.054, P=0.152], but the differences were not statistically significant. (3) Postoperative inflammation: The difference of the procalcitonin level of both PR and NPR groups at postoperative 1-d, 3-d, and 5-d was statistically significant (F=5.222, P=0.010) in time-dependent manner, while the difference was not significant in the interaction effect (P>0.05). No statistically significant differences in the C-reactive protein level between two groups at postoperative 1-d, 3-d, and 5-d were found (all P>0.05). Conclusion: Peritoneum reconstruction in laparoscopic LAR can decrease the morbidity of postoperative complication of grade III to IV and the reoperation rate, and plays an important role in controlling the inflammatory reaction, which has great clinical value.

Case Report: Early Recognition and Repair of Distal Iatrogenic Ureteral Injury During Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery

Background: Ureteral injury is an uncommon complication of the colorectal procedure. The colorectal procedure is the second most common cause of ureteral injury. The laparoscopic approach for colorectal surgery has contributed to the increase of ureteral injury. Delayed diagnosis of the iatrogenic ureteral injury is associated with higher morbidity. However, the early diagnosis of ureteral injury during the operation is difficult. We presented an early recognition and laparoscopic repair of iatrogenic ureteral injury during laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery cases and the strategy for recognizing and managing that injury for the surgeon.Case Presentation: A Male, 34 years old, had an iatrogenic ureteral injury during laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. The left distal ureter was transected by an energy device. The diagnosis of ureteral injury was prompt. The repair of the ureter was done endo-laparoscopically. The patient had an uneventful recovery and was discharged on day 6 after surgery.Conclusion: The iatrogenic ureteral injury, although uncommon, is a serious complication of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Direct visual identification of the distal ureter is mandatory in every rectal surgery. The iatrogenic ureteral injury is not an indication for open conversion when there is an adequate resource to do the endo-laparoscopic ureteral repair.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Oncological Outcomes.

The treatment of rectal cancer is complex and involves specialized multidisciplinary care, although the tenet is still rooted in a high-quality total mesorectal excision. The robotic platform is one of many tools in the arsenal to assist dissection in the low pelvis. This article is a comprehensive review of the oncological outcome comparing robotic vs laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, with a particular focus on total mesorectal excision. There is no statistical difference in total mesorectal grade, circumferential margin, distal margin, and lymph node harvest. Survival data are less mature, but there is also no difference in disease-free or overall survival between the two techniques. Although additional randomized trials are still needed to validate these findings, both techniques are currently acceptable in the minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer, and surgeon preference is paramount to safe and optimal resection.

Clinical application of terminal ileum suspension in laparoscopic radical resection for low rectal cancer.

ABSTRACTObjectives:This paper introduces the surgical procedure of “terminal ileum suspension” in the radical resection for low rectal cancer patients and evaluates the possibility of its clinical application.Methods:This paper retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with low rectal cancer who underwent “terminal ileum suspension” during radical resection of rectal cancer (Dixon) in our hospital, and introduces the specific surgical procedures and key points of “terminal ileum suspension”. Observe the relevant conditions of patients during the operation, postoperative recovery and postoperative complications, and analyze the safety and feasibility of this operation (“terminal ileum suspension”).Results:The operation of all 8 patients went smoothly, and no anastomotic leakage, intestinal obstruction, and open diversion of suspended terminal ileum were found. The application of “terminal ileum suspension” in the operation of low rectal cancer has achieved ideal clinical effect, without increasing the rate of anastomotic leakage and rehospitalization, reducing the proportion of the secondary return operation, and reducing the pain of the patients.Conclusion:“Terminal ileum suspension” is a safe, effective and feasible surgical method for laparoscopic radical resection of low rectal cancer, which can be applied in clinical practice.

Laparoscopic versus open resection for rectal cancer: An individual patient data meta analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and aimsThe role of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection remains controversial. Thus, we aimed to conduct a one-stage meta-analysis with reconstructed patient-level data using randomized trial data to compare long-term oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic and open surgical resection for rectal cancer. MethodsMedline, EMBASE and Scopus were searched for articles comparing laparoscopic with open surgery for rectal cancer. Primary outcome was disease free survival (DFS) while secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). One-stage meta-analysis was conducted using patient-level survival data reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves with Web Plot Digitizer. Shared-frailty and stratified Cox models were fitted to compare survival endpoints. ResultsSeven randomized trials involving 1767 laparoscopic and 1293 open resections for rectal cancer were included. There were no significant differences between both groups for DFS and OS with respective hazard ratio estimates of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.78–1.06, p = 0.241) and 0.86 (95% CI:0.73–1.02, p = 0.090). Sensitivity analysis for non-metastatic patients and patients with mid and lower rectal cancer showed no significant differences in OS and DFS between both surgical approaches. In the laparoscopic arm, improved DFS was noted for stage II (HR: 0.73, 95% CI:0.54–0.98, p = 0.036) and stage III rectal cancers (HR: 0.74, 95% CI:0.55–0.99, p = 0.041). ConclusionsThis meta-analysis concludes that laparoscopic rectal cancer resection does not compromise long-term oncologic outcomes compared with open surgery with potential survival benefits for a minimal access approach in patients with stage II and III rectal cancer.

Internal hernia following laparoscopic anterior resection for cancer: higher prevalence than expected of an under-reported complication

Internal hernia (IH) after laparoscopic colorectal surgery is a potentially severe complication. It may go undiagnosed in patients having their abdominal CT scan during oncologic follow-up. We evaluated the occurrence of IH on CT scans after laparoscopic curative resection for rectal cancer (LRRC) and routine closure of the mesenteric defect. Data from 189 consecutive patients undergoing elective curative LRRC in a 14-year period (June 2005-june 2019) were prospectively collected. Only patients with abdominal CT scans, performed as routine oncologic follow-up, between 3months and 7years post-operatively were included in the study and reviewed by a surgeon and a radiologist. A total of 161 patients were eligible for the study with a median age of 69years (IQR: 59-77) at surgery. They had abdominal follow-up CT scans at a median of 39.5months (IQR: 12.8-62.7) after surgery. The prevalence of IH was 11.2% (18/161 patients). Of the 18 patients, 15 (83.3%) were fully asymptomatic, 2 (11.1%) reported chronic abdominal discomfort (including mostly nausea and colicky pain) during their oncologic follow-up (however, IH was not suspected neither prompted additional investigations), and 1 (5.6%) was reoperated elsewhere for IH and acute small bowel obstruction. IH following LRRC is not uncommon, with a prevalence > 10% in our experience. Most of these patients remain fully asymptomatic, but in a few patients, IH might be responsible for some symptoms or require reoperation. Awareness of this complication is important, given the potential risk of acute small bowel obstruction.

EP.TU.4973 year oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal cancer resections – a single centre experience

Abstract Background Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for rectal cancer is a relatively new technique. Studies to date suggest that short term outcomes including TME quality, margin status, lymph node retrieval and 30-day morbidity and mortality are equivalent in robotic-assisted and laparoscopic MIS for rectal cancer. By contrast, there is a paucity of data on the medium and long-term oncologic safety of robotic-assisted comparative to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Methods A retrospective review was conducted of all robotic-assisted (n = 31) and laparoscopic (n = 23) rectal cancer cases performed at our institution between January 2016 to December 2018. Inclusion criteria were patients scheduled electively for a laparoscopic or robotic-assisted resection of rectal cancer (anterior resection or abdomino-perineal resection). Patients with distant metastases at presentation, those who proceeded to surgery as an emergency and those with a non-colorectal primary were excluded from analysis. Results A total of 54 (n = 54) cases met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. The median follow-up was 34 months. Of the 54, 21 patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy prior to definitive surgery. No significant difference was detected in local recurrence rates (p = 0.5), overall survival (p = 0.7) or disease-free survival (p = 0.8) between the robotic-assisted and laparoscopic cohorts. Conclusion In this series, robotic-assisted rectal cancer resections were associated with equivalent medium term oncological outcomes as laparoscopic procedures. However, given the small numbers in this cohort, outcomes from larger scale datasets will be required to confirm these results.

Clinical Observation of Preserving Left Colonic Artery in Laparoscopic Anterior Resection of Rectal Cancer

Clinical Observation of Preserving Left Colonic Artery in Laparoscopic Anterior Resection of Rectal Cancer

Effects of S(+)-ketamine combined with sufentanil for patient-controlled intravenous analgesia on the early recovery in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer

Objective: To observe the efficacy and safety of S(+)-ketamine combined with sufentanil for patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer and explore its impact on patients' early recovery. Methods: One hundred and ten patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer in Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University from December 2020 to March 2021, were divided into two groups (n=55) using a random number table: group S received PCIA, with continuous infusion of S(+)-ketamine combined with sufentanil, while group C received PCIA, with continuous infusion of sufentanil. PCIA was initiated at the end of the surgery, and the formulations were as follows: group S, S(+)-ketamine (1.44 mg/kg), sufentanil (1.05 μg/kg), ketorolac tromethamine (2.0 mg/kg) and tropisetron (5 mg), in 100 ml of normal saline; group C: sufentanil (1.50 μg/kg), ketorolac tromethamine (2.0 mg/kg) and tropisetron (5 mg), in 100 ml of normal saline. Postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) and Ramsay sedation scale were recorded at 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 h after the surgery. The incidence of remedial analgesia, the effective compressions number of PCI during 48 h after the operation. Time to first ambulation, time to first anal exhaust, time to resume oral feeding were recorded. The occurrence of adverse effects was compared between the two groups. Results: A total of 10 patients were excluded during the study, including 4 cases of conversion to laparotomy, 3 cases of dropping out of the study, and 3 cases with operation time more than 4 hours. Finally, 50 cases in group S and 50 cases in group C completed the study. There were no significant differences in VAS scores and Ramsay sedation sores at all time points between two groups (all P>0.05). Likewise, there were also no significant differences in the number of remedial analgesia and effective compressions of PCIA during 48 h after the operation between the two groups (both P>0.05). The total dosage of sufentanil consumption in group S [(64±9) μg] was lower than that in group C [(95±12) μg] within 48 h of PCIA, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). Time to first ambulation in group S was (1.1±0.2) d, which was shorter than that in group C [(1.6±0.5) d], and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.001). Likewise, time to first anal exhaust in group S [(1.3±0.4) d] was shorter than that in group C [(1.8±0.6) d], with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). Additionally, time to resume oral feeding in group S was (2.5±0.6) d, which was shorter than that in group C [(3.1±0.7) d], and there was a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). The incidence of nausea, vomiting and pruritus in group S were 4.0%, 2.0% and 0, which were lower than that in group C (16.0%, 10% and 8.0%, respectively), with statistically significant differences (all P<0.05). No case with psychiatric symptoms was found in both groups. Conclusion: When used for postoperative intravenous analgesia in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer, S(+)-ketamine combined with sufentanil can provide satisfactory analgesic effects, decrease total consumption of sufentanil and the incidence of adverse effects, and thus facilitate patients' early recovery.

Transanal Drainage Tube Use for Preventing Anastomotic Leakage After Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection in Patients With Rectal Cancer

Preventing anastomotic leakage (AL) is crucial for colorectal surgery. Some studies have suggested a positive role of transanal drainage tubes (TDTs) in AL prevention after low anterior resection, but this finding is controversial. To assess the effect of TDTs in AL prevention after laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. This multicenter randomized clinical trial with parallel groups (TDT vs non-TDT) was performed from February 26, 2016, to September 30, 2020. Participants included patients from 7 different hospitals in China who were undergoing laparoscopic low anterior resection with the double-stapling technique for mid-low rectal cancer; 576 patients were initially enrolled in this study, and 16 were later excluded. Ultimately, 560 patients were randomly divided between the TDT and non-TDT groups. A silicone tube was inserted through the anus, and the tip of the tube was placed approximately 5 cm above the anastomosis under laparoscopy at the conclusion of surgery. The tube was fixed with a skin suture and connected to a drainage bag. The TDT was scheduled for removal 3 to 7 days after surgery. The primary end point was the postoperative AL rate within 30 days. In total, 576 patients were initially enrolled in this study; 16 of these patients were excluded. Ultimately, 560 patients were randomly divided between the TDT group (n = 280; median age, 61.5 years [IQR, 54.0-68.8 years]; 177 men [63.2%]) and the non-TDT group (n = 280; median age, 62.0 years [IQR, 52.0-69.0 years]; 169 men [60.4%]). Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference between the TDT and non-TDT groups in AL rates (18 [6.4%] vs 19 [6.8%]; relative risk, 0.947; 95% CI, 0.508-1.766; P = .87) or AL grades (grade B, 14 [5.0%] and grade C, 4 [1.4%] vs grade B, 11 [3.9%] and grade C, 8 [2.9%]; P = .43). In the stratified analysis based on diverting stomas, there was no significant difference in the AL rate between the groups, regardless of whether a diverting stoma was present (without stoma, 12 [5.8%] vs 15 [7.9%], P = .41; and with stoma, 6 [8.3%] vs 4 [4.5%], P = .50). Anal pain was the most common complaint from patients in the TDT group (130 of 280, 46.4%). Accidental early TDT removal occurred in 20 patients (7.1%), and no bleeding or iatrogenic colonic perforations were detected. The results from this randomized clinical trial indicated that TDTs may not confer any benefit for AL prevention in patients who undergo laparoscopic low anterior resection for mid-low rectal cancer without preoperative radiotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02686567.

Short-Term Outcomes with Standardized Transperineal Minimally Invasive Abdominoperineal Excision for Rectal Cancer

BackgroundTransperineal abdominoperineal excision (TpAPE) is an emerging approach for low rectal cancers but is technically challenging. Based on an anatomical study we conducted previously, we have standardized the TpAPE procedure. Here, we aimed to validate the feasibility of the standardized TpAPE by investigating the short-term outcomes. MethodsFrom January 2018 to November 2020, a total of 405 patients underwent laparoscopic or robotic rectal resection for rectal cancer in our institution. For the current study, we analyzed data for the 31 patients who underwent TpAPE. The abdominal phase was performed synchronously with the perineal phase using either a laparoscopic or robotic approach. Short-term outcomes included operative and pathological results. ResultsOf the 31 cases, we identified anterior quadrant tumor invasion in 21. Most of the cases were advanced, with 6 staged as cT3 and 20 as T4. Of the 27 cases not involving distant metastasis, neoadjuvant therapy was performed in 19. No inadvertent rectal perforation or urethral injury was found intraoperatively. The median procedural duration to specimen removal was 250 min (interquartile range, 204–287), and the median intraoperative blood loss was 10 ml (interquartile range, 5–40). Regarding postoperative complications, perineal wound infection developed in 11 cases. A positive circumferential resection margin was found in 3, corresponding to the positive rate of 9.7%. These three cases were among the first 12 cases involving standardized TpAPE. ConclusionsThe current results indicate that TpAPE can be performed safely and might represent a useful option for low rectal cancer resection.

Lower conversion rate with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy; a national cohort study

BackgroundConversion from laparoscopic to open access colorectal surgery is associated with a poorer postoperative outcome. The aim of this study was to assess conversion rates and outcomes after standard laparoscopic rectal resection (LR) and robotic laparoscopic rectal resection (RR).MethodsA national 5-year cohort study utilizing prospectively recorded data on patients who underwent elective major laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer. Data were retrieved from the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery and from the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry. Primary end point was conversion rate. Secondary end points were postoperative complications within 30 days and histopathological results. Chi-square test, two-sided T test, and Mann–Whitney U test were used for univariable analyses. Both univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the relations between different predictors and outcomes, and propensity score matching was performed to address potential treatment assignment bias.ResultsA total of 1284 patients were included, of whom 375 underwent RR and 909 LR. Conversion rate was 8 out of 375 (2.1%) for RR compared with 87 out of 909 (9.6%) for LR (p < 0.001). RR was associated with reduced risk for conversion compared with LR (aOR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10–0.46). There were no other outcome differences between RR and LR. Factors associated with increased risk for conversion were male gender, severe cardiac disease and BMI > 30. Conversion was associated with higher rates of major complications (20 out of 95 (21.2%) vs 135 out of 1189 (11.4%) p = 0.005), reoperations (13 out of 95 (13.7%) vs 93 out of 1189 (7.1%) p = 0.020), and longer hospital stay (median 8 days vs 6 days, p = 0.001).ConclusionConversion rate was lower with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy. Conversions were associated with higher rates of postoperative complications.

Update on Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches for Rectal Cancer.

This review aims to clarify the current role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer, highlighting short- and long-term outcomes from the latest trials and studies. Data from previous trials has been conflicting, with some failing to demonstrate non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgical resection of rectal cancer compared to an open approach and others demonstrating similar clinical outcomes. Robot-assisted surgery was thought to be a promising solution to the challenges faced by laparoscopic surgery, and even though the only randomized controlled trial to date comparing these two techniques did not show superiority of robot-assisted surgery over laparoscopy, more recent retrospective data suggests a statistically significant higher negative circumferential resection margin rate, decreased frequency of conversion to open, and less sexual and urinary complications. Minimally invasive surgery techniques for resection of rectal cancer, particularly robot-assisted, offer clear short-term peri-operative benefits over an open approach; however, current data has yet to display non-inferiority in terms of oncological outcomes.