Resection For Low Rectal Cancer Research Articles

Transanal local excision versus intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer with stage ypT0-1ycN0 after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: an inverse probability weighting analysis for oncological and functional outcomes.

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of local excision (LE) and intersphincteric resection (ISR) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who achieved a significant or complete pathological response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. We performed a retrospective analysis of data from patients with stage ypT0-1ycN0 low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy who underwent LE or ISR between June 2016 and June 2021. Baseline characteristics, short-term outcomes, long-term oncological outcomes, and functional outcomes, were compared between the two groups. To reduce the selection bias, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed. This study included 106 patients (LE group: n = 51, ISR group: n = 55). There were significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups (P < 0.05). After IPTW, there were almost no significant differences in baseline data between the two groups. The LE group showed less postoperative complications and better function outcomes compared to the ISR group. The LE group had significantly lower rates of complications (13.7% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.014). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of long-term oncological outcomes. For patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer achieving significant or complete pathological response after neoadjuvant therapy, both LE and ISR present comparable oncological outcomes. Yet, LE seems to show more advantages in terms of postoperative complications and functional outcomes. These findings offer important insights for surgical decision-making, emphasizing the necessity to consider both oncological and functional outcomes in selecting the optimal surgical approach.

598P Influence of the early stoma closure after low rectal cancer resection on completeness of adjuvant chemotherapy (CoCStom): A randomized, controlled multicentre trial of the AIO (AIO KRK 0113)

598P Influence of the early stoma closure after low rectal cancer resection on completeness of adjuvant chemotherapy (CoCStom): A randomized, controlled multicentre trial of the AIO (AIO KRK 0113)

Simple transanal total mesorectal resection versus laparoscopic transabdominal total mesorectal resection for the treatment of low rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective case-control study.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of simple TaTNE in the treatment of low rectal cancer compared with laparoscopic transabdominal TME. We collected patients with low rectal cancer admitted to our hospital between January 2019 and November 2021 who received simple TaTME or laparoscopic transabdominal TME. The main outcome was the integrity of the TME specimen. Secondary outcomes were the number of lymph nodes dissected, intraoperative blood loss, operative time, surgical conversion rate, Specimen resection length, circumferential margin (CRM), and distal resection margin (DRM), complication rate. In addition, the Wexner score and LARS score of fecal incontinence were performed in postoperative follow-up. Pathological tissues were successfully resected in all patients. all circumferential margins of the specimen were negative. Specimen resection length was not statistically significant (9.94 ± 2.85 vs. 8.90 ± 2.49, P > 0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications in group A (n = 0) was significantly lower than that in group B (n = 3) (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in operation time between group A and group B (296 ± 60.36 vs. 305 ± 58.28, P > 0.05). Among the patients with follow-up time less than 1 year, there was no significant difference in Wexner score and LARS score between group A and group B (P > 0.05). However, in patients who were followed up for more than 1 year, the Wexner score in group A (9.25 ± 2.73) was significantly lower than that in group B (17.36 ± 10.95) and was statistically significant (P < 0.05). For radical resection of low rectal cancer, Simple TaTME resection may be as safe and effective as laparoscopic transabdominal TME, and the long-term prognosis may be better.

Safety and efficacy of left colic artery preservation in laparoscopic anterior resection for lower rectal cancer.

Background: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of left colic artery (LCA) preservation in laparoscopic anterior resection with D3 lymphadenectomy for lower rectal cancer. Methods: A total of 117 patients with lower rectal cancer who received laparoscopic anterior resection were retrospectively analyzed. Results: No differences were detected in terms of the numbers of harvested lymph nodes and metastatic lymph nodes, the intraoperative and postoperative complications or the postoperative recurrence and survival rates between the two groups (p>0.05), but the LCA preservation group showed a lower anastomotic leakage rate than the LCA nonpreservation group (2/49 vs 12/68). Conclusion: LCA preservation may help reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage without impairing surgical and oncological outcomes.

Chinese expert consensus on intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer (2023 edition)

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate sphincter-preserving surgical technique for low rectal cancer. Accurate preoperative diagnosis and staging, appropriate selection of surgical approaches and technique, standardized perioperative management, and postoperative rehabilitation are the keys to ensuring the oncological effect and functional preservation of ISR. To date, there is still a lack of standardized guidance on the clinical implementation of ISR in China. Therefore, based on the latest evidence from literature, expert experience, and the intervention situation in China, the Chinese Society of Colorectal Surgery, Chinese Society of Surgery, Chinese Medical Association organized domestic experts in colorectal surgery to discuss and produce "Chinese expert consensus on intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer (2023 edition)". This consensus focuses on definition, classification, related pelvic anatomy, operational techniques, postoperative complications, and long-term oncological and functional outcomes, and aims to guide the standardized clinical practice of ISR in the operation of low rectal cancer in China.

Advances in functional assessment and bowel rehabilitation following intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been performed as an ultimate sphincter-sparing strategy in selected patients with low rectal cancer. Accumulating evidence suggests that ISR may be an interesting alternative to abdominoperineal resection to avoid a permanent stoma without compromising oncological outcomes. However, bowel dysfunction is a most common consequence of ISR not to be neglected. To date, limited clinical research has reported functional and quality of life outcomes according to patient-reported outcome measures. Also, data concerning management of low anterior resection syndrome are scarce due to lack of quality evidence. Therefore, this review provides an up-to-date summary of systematic assessment (including function, quality of life, manometry and morphology) and bowel rehabilitation for ISR patients. Postoperative anal function is often assessed by a combination of scales, including the Incontinence Assessment Scale, the Gastrointestinal Function Questionnaire, the Specific LARS Assessment Scale and the Faecal Diary. The condition-specific Quality of Life Scale is more appropriate for Quality-of-life measures in fecal incontinence after ISR. Patients' physiological function after ISR can be assessed using water- or high-resolution solid-state anorectal manometry. Anatomical and morphological changes can be assessed using defecography and 3D endorectal ultrasound. Electrical stimulation and biofeedback, pelvic floor exercises, rectal balloon training, transanal irrigation and sacral neuromodulation are all options for post-operative rehabilitation.

Meta-analysis comparing long-term outcomes of intersphincteric resection versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer

Objective: To compare the long-term outcomes of intersphincteric (trans-internal and external) sphincter resection (ISR) and abdominoperineal proctocolectomy (APR) for low-grade rectal cancer. Methods: We used a meta-analytic approach to compare these procedures . Published reports comparing ISR and APR for low rectal cancer in Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane, China Knowledge Network (CNKI), China Biomedical Literature Database, and Vipers databases between January 2005 and January 2023 were searched and those meeting the eligibility criteria were selected for extraction of data for analysis. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) all reports comparing ISR and APR for low rectal cancer before January 2023; and (2) prospective randomized controlled studies or well-designed cohort studies. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) full text not available; (2) duplicate publications, missing primary outcome indicators, and unknown data; and (3) invalid statistical analysis. Results: Sixteen studies with 2498 patients were included in this study. Compared with the APR group, patients in the ISR group were relatively younger (weighted mean difference [WMD]=-1.82, 95%CI=-2.94 to -0.70, P=0.01), had tumors farther from the anal verge (WMD=0.43, 95%CI=0.18 to 0.67, P<0.01), and lower pathological T-stage (T3-4 stage: OR=0.54, 95%CI=0.36 to 0.81, P<0.01). In contrast, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in gender (P=0.78), body mass index (P=0.77), or pathological N stage (P=0.09). Compared with the APR group, patients in the ISR group had a lower rate of postoperative complications (OR=0.77, 95%CI=0.60 to 0.99, P=0.04), shorter hospital stay (WMD=-4.30, 95%CI=-7.07 to -1.53, P<0.01), higher 5-year overall survival (HR=0.54, 95%CI=0.33 to 0.88, P=0.01), and higher 5-year disease-free survival (HR=0.65, 95%CI=0.47 to 0.90, P<0.01). Five-year locoregional failure (HR=0.66, 95%CI=0.40 to 1.10, P=0.11) and time to surgery (WMD=-9.71, 95%CI=-41.89 to 22.47, P=0.55) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusion: ISR is a safe and effective alternative to APR for early-stage low-grade rectal cancer.

How to reasonably deal with zero-events in meta-analysis of surgery-related outcomes? Oncologic outcomes of intersphincteric resection vs. abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

How to reasonably deal with zero-events in meta-analysis of surgery-related outcomes? Oncologic outcomes of intersphincteric resection vs. abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Integration of prolapsing technique and one-stitch method of ileostomy during laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a retrospective study.

Prolapsing technique is a type of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery that can overcome the difficulty of precise transection of the distal rectum and subsequent anastomosis in a narrow pelvic space. Currently, protective ileostomy is widely utilized in low anterior resection for low rectal cancer, which may reduce the severe consequences caused by anastomotic leakage. The study aimed to combine the prolapsing technique with a one-stitch method of ileostomy and evaluate the surgical outcomes. A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with low rectal cancer who underwent protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior resection between January 2019 and December 2022. The patients were divided into prolapsing technique combined with the one-stitch method of ileostomy (PO) group and traditional method (TM) group, and the intraoperative details and early postoperative outcomes of the two groups were measured. A total of 70 patients met the inclusion criteria, including 30 patients who underwent PO and 40 patients who underwent the traditional procedure. The PO group had a shorter total operative time than the TM group (197.8 ± 43.4 vs. 218.3 ± 40.6 min, P = 0.047). The time of intestine function recovery in the PO group was shorter than that in the TM group (24.6 ± 3.8 vs. 32.7 ± 5.4 h, P < 0.001). Compared with the TM group, the average VAS score was significantly lower in the PO group (P < 0.001). The incidence of anastomotic leakage in the PO group was significantly lower than that in the TM group (P = 0.034). The operative time of loop ileostomy was 2.0 ± 0.6 min in the PO group, which was significantly less than 15.1 ± 2.9 min in the TM group. Skin irritation was observed in 2 patients in the PO group and 10 patients in the TM group; therefore, there was a significant difference (P = 0.044). This method is safe and feasible, which reduces the technical difficulty and achieves rapid postoperative recovery with few complications.

Biosynthetic Mesh Reconstruction after Abdominoperineal Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Cross Relation of Surgical Healing and Oncological Outcomes: A Multicentric Observational Study.

Local wound complications are among the most relevant sequelae after an abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancer. One of the proposed techniques to improve the postoperative recovery and to accelerate the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy is the mesh reinforcement of the perineal wound. The aim of the current study is to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes after APR performed with a biosynthetic mesh reconstruction versus the conventional procedure. From 2015 to 2020, in two tertiary centres, the surgical outcomes, the wound events (i.e., surgical site infections, wound dehiscence and the complete healing time) and the oncological outcomes (i.e., time length to start adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy, an over 8-week delay in chemotherapy and the recurrence rate) were retrospectively analysed in patients undergoing APR reinforced with biosynthetic mesh (Group A) and conventional APR (Group B). Results Sixty-one patients were treated with APR (25 in Group A and 36 in Group B). Patients in Group A presented lower time for: healing (16 versus 24 days, p = 0.015), inferior perineal wound dehiscence rates (one versus nine cases, p = 0.033), an earlier adjuvant therapy start (26 versus 70 days, p = 0.003) and a lower recurrence rate (16.6% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.152). In our series, the use of a biosynthetic mesh for the neo-perineum reconstruction after a Miles' procedure has resulted in safe, reproducible results affected by limited complications, guarantying a rapid start of the adjuvant therapy with clear benefits in oncological outcomes. Further randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up are needed to validate these results.

Transanal Conformal Resection Is Associated with a Better Postoperative Anorectal Function Compared with Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer

Transanal Conformal Resection Is Associated with a Better Postoperative Anorectal Function Compared with Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer

Ghost Ileostomy Versus Loop Ileostomy Following Oncologic Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The aim of this study was to compare ghost ileostomy (GI) and loop ileostomy (LI) in patients undergoing oncologic resection for rectal cancer in terms of postoperative morbidity. LIs are often fashioned to protect downstream anastomoses following oncologic resection for low rectal cancer at medium-to-high risk of anastomotic leak. More recently, GIs have been utilized in patients with low-to-medium risk anastomoses to reduce the rate of unnecessary stomas. Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Studies investigating the use of GI in patients undergoing oncologic resection for rectal cancer were included. The primary outcomes were anastomotic leak and postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included stoma-related complications and length of stay (LOS). Pairwise meta-analyses were performed with inverse variance random effects. From 242 citations, 14 studies with 946 patients were included. In comparative studies, 359 patients were undergoing GI and 266 patients were undergoing LI. Pairwise meta-analysis revealed no differences in the prevalence of anastomotic leak (OR 1.40, 95%CI .73-2.68, P = .31), morbidity (OR .76, 95%CI .44-1.30, P = .32), or LOS (SMD -.05, 95%CI -.33-.23, P = .72). International Study Group of Rectal Cancer anastomotic leak grades were as follows: Grade A (GI 0% vs LI 13.3%), Grade B (GI 80.9% vs LI 86.7%), Grade C (GI 19.1% vs LI 0%). GI appears to be a safe alternative to LI following oncologic resection for rectal cancer. Larger, prospective comparative studies are warranted to evaluate the use of GI in patients deemed to be at low-to-medium risk of anastomotic leak.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Rectal Modular Resection in Low Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective Study.

Background: Described by Heald in 1982, total mesorectal excision (TME) is now routinely performed as the standard procedure for mid-low rectal cancer, with remarkable decrease in local recurrence and improved oncology outcome. However, the integrity of the resected mesentery and damage to autonomic nerves still remain challenging for general surgeons, especially in the cohort of neoadjuvant therapy patients. The concept of rectal modular resection (RMR), based on an integral understanding of the regional anatomy, was proposed as a surgical skill for dissociation of the rectum with shorter surgical duration, function preservation, and improved oncology outcome. Methods: This was a retrospective trial. Patients with resectable rectal lesions, ranging between 3 and 7 cm from the anal verge, were enrolled and grouped by TME surgery based on RMR or classical procedure resection (CPR). We estimated perioperative outcomes, including surgery complications such as anastomotic leak, urine retention, and others. Pathological properties, including distal clearance, harvested lymph nodes, tumor differentiation, and specimen grading, were also taken into account. Patients were followed postoperatively and functional evaluation was recorded at the 3-month and 1-year postoperation visits. Results: From January 2019 to December 2021, a total of 92 patients were enrolled in this study. TME surgery complying with the RMR methodology was performed with a back-to-bilateral-to-front modular proceeding. Duration of operation was significantly shortened in the RMR group, without increase in blood loss or failure rate of anus preservation. The quality of the specimen, graded according to integrity of the mesorectum, stands out in the RMR group. Functional evaluation revealed no statistical difference between RMR and CPR groups regarding sexual ability impairment and defecation disorder since follow-up is still ongoing. Conclusions: RMR-based TME was efficient with compressed operation duration compared with CPR and its safety was well validated with regard to the occurrence of complications and function loss.

Early Postoperative Small Bowel Obstruction: Can We Blame the Drain?

Abdominal drains are frequently used in both elective and emergency laparotomies, in order to prevent formation of postoperative collections in gravity-dependent positions or as means of early detection of postoperative hemorrhage and anastomotic leaks. Despite the benefits of their use, rare drain-related complications have been reported in the literature, including adhesional band formation and intestinal erosion. Herein, we present an extremely rare case of early, non-resolving postoperative small bowel obstruction after abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer, which was induced from firm extrinsic compression of the distal ileum by a corrugated pelvic drain.

Real-time in vivo distal margin selection using confocal laser endomicroscopy in transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) allows patients with ultralow rectal cancer to be treated with sphincter-saving surgery. However, accurate delineation of the distal resection margin (DRM), which is essential to achieve R0 resection for low rectal cancer in TaTME, is technically demanding. To assess the feasibility of optical biopsy using probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) to select the DRM during TaTME for low rectal cancer. A total of 43 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with low rectal cancer and scheduled for TaTME were prospectively enrolled from January 2019 to January 2021. pCLE was used to determine the distal edge of the tumor as well as the DRM during surgery. The final pathological report was used as the gold standard. The diagnostic accuracy of pCLE examination was calculated. A total of 86 pCLE videos of 43 patients were included in the analyses. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of real-time pCLE examination were 90.00% [95% confidence interval (CI): 76.34%-97.21%], 86.96% (95%CI: 73.74%-95.06%) and 88.37% (95%CI: 79.65%-94.28%), respectively. The accuracy of blinded pCLE reinterpretation was 86.05% (95%CI: 76.89%-92.58%). Furthermore, our results show satisfactory interobserver agreement (κ = 0.767, standard error = 0.069) for the detection of cancer tissue by pCLE. There were no positive DRMs (≤ 1 mm) in this study. The median DRM was 7 mm [interquartile range (IQR) = 5-10 mm]. The median Wexner score was 5 (IQR = 3-6) at 6 mo after stoma closure. Real-time in vivo pCLE examination is feasible and safe for selecting the DRM during TaTME for low rectal cancer (clinical trial registration number: NCT04016948).

Risk factor and nomogram for predicting the probability of a permanent stoma after laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for ultralow rectal cancer

Objective: A permanent stoma can seriously affect patients' quality of life. Clinicians need to consider the risk of a permanent stoma when making clinical decisions. This study analyzed preoperative predictors of a permanent stoma after laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer (LISR), and a prediction model was constructed validated. Methods: This was a retrospective study that analyzed clinical data of 331 ultralow rectal cancer patients who were diagnosed with primary rectal adenocarcinoma by endoscopy and pathology, including 218 males and 113 female, (58.8±11.2) years and (23.7±3.1) kg/m2. The patients underwent LISR with a preventive stoma from January 2012 to December 2020. Patients with multiple primary colorectal cancers, who underwent emergency surgery for intestinal obstruction or bleeding or perforation, and did not complete 18 months follow up were exclucled. R software was used to randomly select 234 patients as the modeling group with a ratio of approximately 7:3, and the remaining 97 patients comprised the validation group. The stoma site was determined by the surgeon before the operation, and the ileum 30 cm from the ileocecal valve was selected. The rates of a permanent stoma for the entire group and the preoperative clinical factors that may affect the permanency of a stoma in the modeling group were determined. A permanent stoma was defined as failure to close the stoma at 18 months after surgery. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the preoperative independent risk factors for a permanent stoma after LISR. R software was used to create the nomogram model, and the predictive ability of the nomogram model was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: Among the 331 patients who underwent LISR, 37 (26 cases in the modeling group and 11 cases in the validation group, 11.2%) developed a permanent stoma for the following reasons: anastomotic stenosis due to leakage (16 cases, 43.2%), distant metastasis (16 cases, 43.2%), intolerant to stoma closure surgery (3 cases, 8.1%), stenosis due to postoperative radiation (1 case, 2.7%), and poor recovery of anorectal function (1 case, 2.7%). Univariate analysis showed that preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, poorly differentiated tumor, cT3 stage, and distant metastasis were associated with a permanent stoma. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy [OR=3.078, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.326-7.147; P=0.009], cT3 stage (OR=2.257, 95%CI: 1.001-5.091; P=0.049), and stage IV cancer (OR=16.180, 95%CI: 2.753-95.102; P=0.002) were independent risk factors for permanent stoma after LISR. Based on the selected risk factors, a nomogram model for predicting permanent stoma was constructed. The area under the ROC curve of the modeling group was 0.793, the optimal cut-off value was 0.890, the sensitivity was 0.577, and the specificity was 0.885. The area under the ROC curve of the validation group was 0.953. The corrected curves of the modeling group and the validation group showed a good degree of fit. Conclusion: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, cT3 stage, and distant metastasis are independent predictors of a permanent stoma after LISR, and the nomogram model is helpful to predict the probability of a permanent stoma. Patients with high-risk factors should be adequately informed of the risk of a permanent stoma before colorectal surgery.

Robotic vs. laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a case matched study reporting a median of 7-year long-term oncological and functional outcomes.

Aim of this study was to compare operative, long-term oncological and functional outcomes of laparoscopic (LISR) and robotic (RISR) intersphincteric resection in low-lying rectal cancer. Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database was performed. 115 cases (LISR, n = 55; RISR, n = 60) were performed by a single surgeon (January 2011-January 2020). Clinical characteristics did not differ between the groups. Operating time was longer in RISR (160.0 ± 45.7 vs. 205.0 ± 36.5min, p = 0.035). There was no conversion in RISR, whereas in LISR, two patients (3.6%) converted to open surgery. Complete mesorectum was 61.8% and 83.3% for LISR and RISR (p = 0.046), respectively. Circumferential radial margin involvement was 10.9% and 8.3% in LISR and RISR (p = 0.365), respectively. Median follow-up was 82.8 (30-138) months for LISR and 83.6 (30-138) months for RISR. Three-, five-, and seven-year overall survival rates (OS) for LISR and RISR were: 88.6%, 80.4%, 73.4% and 90.4%, 86.3%, 76.9%, respectively. Three-, five-, and seven-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates for LISR and RISR were 80.5%, 75.2%, 70.4% and 84.4%, 81.4%, 79.8% (p = 0.328), respectively. Three-, five-, and seven-year local recurrence-free survival rates in LISR and RISR were: 96.1%, 92.6%, 88.4% and 96.7%, 94.2%, 90.4% (p = 0.573), respectively. Mean Wexner score for LISR (n = 32) and RISR (n = 40) was: 10.5 ± 4.7 and 9.8 ± 4.2 (p = 0.782), respectively. Colostomy-free survival in LISR and RISR was: 3 years 94.5%/95.2%, 5 years 89.1%/91.7%, and 7 years 83.6%/85.0%. RISR is associated with better mesorectal integrity, no conversion, and lower postoperative complication rate. RISR has longer operation time. Oncological and anorectal functional outcomes are similar in both groups.

Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopy-Assisted vs Open Surgery for Patients With Low Rectal Cancer

The efficacy of laparoscopic vs open surgery for patients with low rectal cancer has not been established. To compare the short-term efficacy of laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery for treatment of low rectal cancer. This multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted in 22 tertiary hospitals across China. Patients scheduled for curative-intent resection of low rectal cancer were randomized at a 2:1 ratio to undergo laparoscopic or open surgery. Between November 2013 and June 2018, 1070 patients were randomized to laparoscopic (n = 712) or open (n = 358) surgery. The planned follow-up was 5 years. Data analysis was performed from April 2021 to March 2022. Eligible patients were randomized to receive either laparoscopic or open surgery. The short-term outcomes included pathologic outcomes, surgical outcomes, postoperative recovery, and 30-day postoperative complications and mortality. A total of 1039 patients (685 in laparoscopic and 354 in open surgery) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (median [range] age, 57 [20-75] years; 620 men [59.7%]; clinical TNM stage II/III disease in 659 patients). The rate of complete mesorectal excision was 85.3% (521 of 685) in the laparoscopic group vs 85.8% (266 of 354) in the open group (difference, -0.5%; 95% CI, -5.1% to 4.5%; P = .78). The rate of negative circumferential and distal resection margins was 98.2% (673 of 685) vs 99.7% (353 of 354) (difference, -1.5%; 95% CI, -2.8% to 0.0%; P = .09) and 99.4% (681 of 685) vs 100% (354 of 354) (difference, -0.6%; 95% CI, -1.5% to 0.5%; P = .36), respectively. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 13.0 vs 12.0 (difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.1-1.9; P = .39). The laparoscopic group had a higher rate of sphincter preservation (491 of 685 [71.7%] vs 230 of 354 [65.0%]; difference, 6.7%; 95% CI, 0.8%-12.8%; P = .03) and shorter duration of hospitalization (8.0 vs 9.0 days; difference, -1.0; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.3; P = .008). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications rate between the 2 groups (89 of 685 [13.0%] vs 61 of 354 [17.2%]; difference, -4.2%; 95% CI, -9.1% to -0.3%; P = .07). No patient died within 30 days. In this randomized clinical trial of patients with low rectal cancer, laparoscopic surgery performed by experienced surgeons was shown to provide pathologic outcomes comparable to open surgery, with a higher sphincter preservation rate and favorable postoperative recovery. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01899547.

A prospective study of specimen eversion to lateral rectum and valgus resection for low rectal cancer.

PurposeTo investigate the safety and efficacy of a reverse puncture device (RPD) and specimen eversion of the rectum for resection in total laparoscopic proctectomy.MethodsIn a prospective study from August 2019 to March 2021, 40 patients underwent a procedure with an RPD and specimen eversion of the rectum for total laparoscopic low rectal cancer resection, that is natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES), were included in the NOSES group. Forty patients in the control group underwent conventional laparoscopic radical resection for low rectal cancer and were included in the LAP group. Intraoperative- and postoperative-related indicators, recovery and inflammatory factors, quality of life (QOL) and mental health were compared.ResultsAll operations were successfully completed. Compared with the LAP group, the NOSES group showed better short-term outcomes, such as time to eating, postoperative pain, and especially postoperative incision-related complications. At the same time, postoperative inflammatory factor levels, psychological trauma, life-related anxiety and depression scores, and QOL were better in the NOSES group than in the LAP group.ConclusionsThe application of an RPD and specimen eversion of the rectum for total laparoscopic low rectal cancer resection is a technically feasible and safe approach with a short-term curative effect.

Discussion on the Effect of Laparoscopic and Anus Endoscopic Radical Resection of Low Rectal Cancer Combined with Accelerated Rehabilitation Surgery in Patients with Rectal Cancer

Discussion on the Effect of Laparoscopic and Anus Endoscopic Radical Resection of Low Rectal Cancer Combined with Accelerated Rehabilitation Surgery in Patients with Rectal Cancer