Total Mesorectal Excision For Rectal Cancer Research Articles

Three-year disease-free survival after transanal vs. laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer (TaLaR): A randomized clinical trial.

3516 Background: Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has gained significant traction as an effective approach for treating rectal cancer. Many previous studies reported positive relevant short-term results, histopathological results and associated complications of taTME compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (laTME). Nonetheless, long-term oncological outcomes of taTME remain controversial. This study aimed to compare the 3-year DFS of taTME with laTME. Methods: We conducted a phase 3, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial to compare the survival outcomes of taTME versus laTME in patients with rectal cancer located below the peritoneal reflection. This trial encompassed 16 hospitals across 10 provinces in China, with a total enrollment of 1,115 patients. We set the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year overall survival (OS) as the primary endpoints for analysis. The analysis of the 3-year DFS was conducted following a predefined modified intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02966483. Results: The taTME group exhibited a 3-year DFS rate of 83.42%, and the laTME group achieved a 3-year DFS rate of 82.86%. The marginal difference of 0.56% between the DFS rates of the two groups (97.5% CI, −4.83 to 5.95, P < 0.0001 for noninferiority) suggests comparable outcomes. Moreover, the rates of local recurrence were 3.90% in the taTME group and 3.62% in the laTME group, indicating similar degrees of localized tumor control. Regarding overall survival, the taTME group demonstrated a rate of 94.50% compared to 92.01% in the laTME group. In the taTME group, patients who are male or underwent neoadjuvant showed a higher 3-year OS than that in the laTME group. Conclusions: In patients with mid-low rectal cancer, the 3-year DFS of taTME is not inferior to that of laTME. This study provides evidence supporting the clinical effectiveness of taTME in the treatment of rectal cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT02966483 .

Comparing short-term outcomes of robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision surgery for rectal cancer in elderly patients.

Da Vinci Robotics-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer is becoming more widely used. There is no strong evidence that robotic-assisted surgery and laparoscopic surgery have similar outcomes in elderly patients with TME for rectal cancer. To determine the improved oncological outcomes and short-term efficacy of robot-assisted surgery in elderly patients undergoing TME surgery. A retrospective study of the clinical pathology and follow-up of elderly patients who underwent TME surgery at the Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology at the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine was conducted from March 2020 through September 2023. The patients were divided into a robot-assisted group (the R-TME group) and a laparoscopic group (the L-TME group), and the short-term efficacy of the two groups was compared. There were 45 elderly patients (≥ 60 years) in the R-TME group and 50 elderly patients (≥ 60 years) in the L-TME group. There were no differences in demographics, conversion rates, or postoperative complication rates. The L-TME group had a longer surgical time than the R-TME group [145 (125, 187.5) vs 180 (148.75, 206.25) min, P = 0.005), and the first postoperative meal time in the L-TME group was longer than that in the R-TME (4 vs 3 d, P = 0.048). Among the sex and body mass index (BMI) subgroups, the R-TME group had better outcomes than did the L-TME group in terms of operation time (P = 0.042) and intraoperative assessment of bleeding (P = 0.042). In the high BMI group, catheter removal occurred earlier in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group (3 vs 4 d, P = 0.001), and autonomous voiding function was restored. The curative effect and short-term efficacy of robot-assisted TME surgery for elderly patients with rectal cancer are similar to those of laparoscopic TME surgery; however, robotic-assisted surgery has better short-term outcomes for individuals with risk factors such as obesity and pelvic stenosis. Optimizing the learning curve can shorten the operation time, reduce the recovery time of gastrointestinal function, and improve the prognosis.

Comparison of local excision and total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trial

ObjectivesTo report the first and largest systematic review and meta-analysis of radomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and safety of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer for perioperative and oncological outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature retrieval via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane until December 2022 for RCTs which evaluated the efficacy and/or safety between TEM and TME for rectal cancer. Outcomes included operative time, blood loss, transfusion rates, hospital stay, complication rates, recurrence rates, and mortality. Results: A total of 5 RCTs involving 545 patients (272 TEM versus 273 TME) were included for the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the two groups for age, gender, and distance from lower border of tumor to anal verge. Meta-analysis found that the TEM group was significantly favorable than the TME group for blood loss (WMD: 172.01; 95 % CI: 212.78, −131.24; P < 0.00001), hospital stay (WMD: 2.58; 95 % CI: 3.01, −2.16; P < 0.00001), operative time (WMD: 81.86; 95 % CI: 87.51, −76.21; P < 0.00001) and transfusion rates (RR: 0.05; 95 % CI: 0.01, 0.38; P = 0.004). The complication rates (RR: 0.60; 95 % CI: 0.32, 1.11; P = 0.10), recurrence rates (RR: 1.10; 95 % CI: 0.66, 1.83; P = 0.72), and mortality (RR: 1.23; 95 % CI: 0.67, 2.26; P = 0.51) were similar in the two groups. Conclusions: TEM was an effective and safe approach with advantages in perioperative outcomes compared with TME approach. Caution should be exercised in interpreting the differences in surgical complications between TEM and TME group due to significant heterogeneity and instability.

Lateral lymph node involvement presents another challenge in rectum cancer in the age of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy + total mesorectal excision: an evaluation of survival outcomes.

In the last decades, total mesorectal excision (TME) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) have produced an undeniable improvement in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, local recurrence is still an important problem, and the effect of lateral lymph node (LLN) involvement on local recurrence is a controversial issue. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of LLN status on local recurrence and survival in rectal cancers treated with nCRT + TME. Clinical features, pre- and post-nCRT lateral pelvic region imaging, long-term local recurrence, and the survival outcomes of 114 patients who underwent nCRT + TME for rectal cancer were evaluated. On MRI before nCRT, 20 (17.5%) patients had lateral lymph nodes (LLN+), and 94 (82.5%) patients had no lymph nodes in the lateral pelvic compartments (LLN-). Local recurrences at 1 year in LLN+ and LLN- patients were 3 (15.8%) and 2 (2.3%), respectively (p=0.039). Five-year local recurrence-free survival rates and the mean duration of recurrence-free survival in LLN+ and LLN- patients were 56.2%, 42.6 months, and 87.3% 66.9 months, respectively (p=0.001). Disease-free survival and overall survival were shorter in LLN+ patients, but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.096 and p=0.46, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, LLN involvement was determined to be an independent risk factor for local recurrence-free survival (Hazard Ratio 4.54, p=0.003). Lateral lymph node involvement causes local recurrence to remain high after nCRT + TME. LLN status should be considered in treatment planning. Further studies are needed to define precise criteria for LLN involvement and the effect of LLND on local recurrence and survival.

Evaluation of effect of robotic versus laparoscopic surgical technology on genitourinary function after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

ObjectiveBecause the recovery of genitourinary function after total mesorectal excision (TME) is affected by multiple factors, the role of robot-assisted TME technology in postoperative function in previous studies is still controversial. Our study aimed to evaluate the impact of robotic technology on the recovery of genitourinary function after TME for rectal cancer by analysing the correlations between influencing factors of genitourinary function and robotic surgery. MethodsBetween January 2017 and January 2020, patients with rectal cancer (cT1-3NxM0) were registered. Genitourinary function was assessed by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) test, Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and urodynamic examination before surgery and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Genitourinary function was compared between the laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) and robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) groups, and the correlative factors associated with postoperative genitourinary function were analysed using the generalized estimated equation (GEE). ResultsCompared with L-TME, R-TME showed a superior IPSS, voiding volume, residual urine volume and IIEF score during the early postoperative period. According to the GEE analysis, postoperative genitourinary function was positively correlated with laparoscopic anterior resection/abdomen perineal resection (LAR/APR) but negatively correlated with tumour size, tumour distance to anus, TNM, adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiotherapy, complete TME, circumferential resection margin (CRM), blood loss, diverting stoma, conversion, and anastomotic leakage. ConclusionDue to the important role of robotic surgical technology on the influential factors of postoperative genitourinary function and the superiority of identifying and preserving autonomic nerves, robotic technology is conducive to the early recovery of postoperative urogenital function while adhering to oncological dissection principles. No significant difference was found between the da Vinci R-TME and MicroHand R-TME groups.

The "terminal line": a novel sign for the identification of distal mesorectum end during TME for rectal cancer.

BackgroundAlthough the clinical importance of complete, intact total mesorectal excision (TME) is the widely accepted standard for decreasing local recurrence of rectal cancer, the residual mesorectum still represents a significant component of resection margin involvement. This study aimed to use a visible intraoperative sign to detect the distal mesorectal end to ensure complete inclusion of the mesorectum and avoid unnecessary over-dissection.MethodsThe distal mesorectum end was investigated retrospectively through a review of 124 operative videos at the Union Hospital of Fujian Medical University (Fujian, China) and Cleveland Clinic (Ohio, USA) by two independent surgeons who were blinded to each other. Furthermore, 28 cadavers and 44 post-operative specimens were prospectively examined by hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining and Masson's staining to validate and confirm the findings of the retrospective part. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to detect the independent factors that can affect the visualization of the distal mesorectal end.ResultsThe terminal line (TL) is the distal mesorectal end of the transabdominal and transanal TME (taTME) and appears as a remarkable pearly white fascial structure extending posteriorly from 2 to 10 o'clock. Histopathological examination revealed that the fascia propria of the rectum merges with the presacral fascia at the TL, beyond which the mesorectum ends, with no further downward extension. In the retrospective observation, the TL was seen in 56.6% of transabdominal TME and 56.0% of taTME operations. Surgical approach and tumor distance from the anal verge were the independent variables that directly influenced the detection of the TL (P = 0.03 and P = 0.01).ConclusionThe TL is a visible sign where the transabdominal TME should end and the taTME should begin. Recognition of the mesorectal end may impact the certainty of complete mesorectum inclusion. Further clinical trials are needed to confirm the preliminary findings.

SP1.2.12A meta-analysis of the impact of rectal washout on local recurrence following anterior resection for rectal cancers

Abstract Background Standardisation of surgical technique in form of total mesorectal excision (TME) and the use of preoperative radiotherapy have led to improved oncological outcomes in rectal cancer. However, the effectiveness of rectal washout in reducing local recurrence (LR) following anterior resection remains debatable. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of rectal washout in reducing incidence of LR after anterior resection for rectal cancer. Methods A literature search of electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane was performed for studies that compared rectal washout to no washout after anterior resection using TME for rectal cancers. The review included all articles reporting oncological outcome of local recurrence. Meta-analysis was carried out using random effect model. Results A total of 5 studies involving 5315 patients were included in meta-analysis. Median follow-up was 60 (range 33–60) months. Overall local recurrence rate was 6.6 % with no significant difference in LR rate between the rectal washout and no washout groups (5.23% vs. 9 %)(P = 0.93; RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.52- 1.83).Similarly in subgroup analysis including prospective studies only no significant difference in LR was seen after washout (P = 0.06) or in group of patients treated with a curative intent(P = 0.50). LR was significantly lower in patients who had a rectal washout with normal saline (P &amp;lt; 0.00001; RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47-0.74). Conclusion This meta-analysis shows that there is no benefit of rectal washout in reducing incidence of local recurrence after anterior resection for rectal cancers.

Transanal Transection and Single-Stapled Anastomosis (TTSS): A comparison of anastomotic leak rates with the double-stapled technique and with transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer

Backgroundin the literature on rectal cancer (RC) surgery many studies have focused on the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) dissection, while there is a scarcity of comparative data on transection and anastomosis. No anastomosis has so far proved to be superior to any other. The aim of this study was to compare anastomotic leak (AL) rates between conventional laparoscopic double-stapled (DS), transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and Transanal Transection and Single-Stapled anastomosis (TTSS) techniques. Methodsconsecutive mid-low RC patients undergoing elective laparoscopic TME with stapled anastomosis and protective stoma, by either DS, TaTME or TTSS techniques were retrieved from a prospectively collected database. Results127 DS; 100 TaTME and 50 TTSS were included. Demographics, distance of the tumor from anal verge and neoadjuvant therapy were comparable. Operative time was longer in TaTME over DS and TTSS (p < 0.0001). More 90-days complications occurred in DS group vs TTSS (p = 0.029). The AL rate was 17.5% in DS, 6% in TaTME and 2% in TTSS group (p = 0.005). AL grade was: one B (2%) in TTSS; 2 grade B (2%) and 4 grade C (4%) in TaTME; 6 grade A (4.7%), 7 grade B (5.5%) and 9 grade C (7.1%) in DS group. Reintervention rate after AL was higher in DS group over TTSS (12.6% vs 2%; p = 0.003). The rate of stoma closure, pathology data and margin positivity did not differ. ConclusionsTTSS strategy is feasible, safe and leads to very low AL rates after TME for RC.

High Versus Low Ligation of the Inferior Mesenteric Artery During Rectal Resection for Cancer: Oncological Outcomes After Three Years of Follow-Up From the HIGHLOW Trial.

To determine the disease-free survival (DFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and recurrence in patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) with either high or low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA). The level of IMA ligation during anterior rectal resection with TME is still a matter of debate, especially in terms of oncological adequacy. Between June 2014 and December 2016, patients scheduled to undergo elective laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) and TME in 6 Italian nonacademic hospitals were randomized into 2 groups in the HIGHLOW Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02153801) according to the level of IMA ligation: high ligation (HL) versus low ligation (LL). DFS, DSS, and recurrence were inquired. Recurrence was determined at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and every 6 months thereafter. Patients and tumor characteristics as well as surgical outcomes were analyzed to identify risk factors for recurrence. One hundred ninety-six patients from the HIGHLOW trial were analyzed. Median follow-up for DFS was 40.6 (interquartile range [IQR], 6-64.7) and 40 (IQR, 7.6-67.8), while median follow-up for DSS was 41.2 (IQR, 10.7-64.7) and 42.7 (IQR, 6-67.6) in the HL and LL groups, respectively. The 3-year DFS rate of HL and LL patients was 82.2% and 82.1% (P = 0.874), respectively. The 3-year DSS for HL and LL patients was 92.1% and 93.4% (P = 0.897), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the local recurrence rate (2% HL vs 2.1% LL), in the regional recurrence rate (3% HL vs 2.1% LL), and in the distant recurrence rate (12.9% HL vs 13.7% LL). Multivariate analysis found conversion to open surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 3.68; P = 0.001) and higher stage of disease (HR, 7.73; P < 0.001) to be significant determinant for DFS. The level of inferior mesenteric artery ligation during LAR and TME for rectal cancer does not affect DFS, DSS, and recurrence.

The burden of low anterior resection syndrome on quality of life in patients with mid or low rectal cancer.

Low anterior resection (LAR) with total mesorectal excision (TME) for mid and low rectal cancer is standard of care, reducing local recurrence and enhancing long-term survival. However, this surgery is associated with a constellation of major defecatory problems that are collectively referred to as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). The aims of this study were to evaluate the frequency of LARS in patients who have undergone LAR and to assess the impact of LARS on long-term quality of life (QoL). This was a single-center prospective survey study on patients who underwent LAR and TME for low or mid rectal cancer between 2007 and 2015. LARS score and QLQ-C30 questionnaires were used to evaluate patient's bowel functions and quality of life, respectively. Associations between LARS and QoL were evaluated. Fifty-seven patients out of 65 eligible agreed to participate in the study. Forty-three (66%) patients returned complete questionnaires. Five patients (11.6%) had no LARS, 7 had minor LARS (16.3%), and 31 had major LARS (72.1%). In univariate analysis, BMI > 30kg/m2 was predictive of major LARS (p = 0.047). Major LARS did not impair global QoL (p = 0.75), function scores, or social scales, and was not associated with any of the symptom scores except for diarrhea (p = 0.02). LARS is a frequent occurrence after LAR and TME for rectal cancer (72.1%) and is more prevalent in morbidly obese patients. However, the occurrence of LARS does not appear to have a direct impact on QoL except for the occurrence of diarrhea.

TME for rectal cancer: consecutive 70 patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic technique-cumulative experience in a single centre.

From January 2011 to December 2015, 70 consecutive patients underwent either laparoscopic surgery (LS) or robotic surgery (RS) total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy. Data were prospectically recorded in a dedicated local database including ASA score, age, operative time, conversion rate, re-operation rate, early complications, length of stay, and pathological results. We enrolled 70 consecutive patients, 35 treated with LS (18M, 17 F), 35 treated with RS (23M, 12 F). Median total operative time was 225min in LS group (IQR 194-255) and 252.5min for RS group (IQR 214-300). Median first flatus time was 2days for LS group (IQR 1-3) and 1day for RS group (IQR 1-2). Stool discharge time (median) was 4days for LS group (IQR 2-5) and 2days for RS group (IQR 1-3). Length of stay (median) was 8days in LS group (IQR 7-10) and 7days in RS group (IQR 5-8). It was not found any statistically significant difference between the two groups when we analyzed the number nodes harvested the postoperative complications. The 30day mortality was 0% in both two groups. The conversion rate for LS group was 23% (8/35 pts) and that for RS group was 0% (0/35). The RS may overcome technical limitations of LS. In our experience, it is a feasible and safe technique, it achieves better clinical outcomes due to the lower conversion rate compared to LS, although with higher costs.

Impact of an institutional change from routine to highly selective diversion of a low anastomosis after TME for rectal cancer

IntroductionThe need for routine diverting ileostomy following restorative total mesorectal excision (TME) is increasingly debated as the benefits might not outweigh the disadvantages. This study evaluated an institutional shift from routine (RD) to highly selective diversion (HSD) after TME surgery for rectal cancer. Materials and methodsPatients having TME with primary anastomosis and HSD for low or mid rectal cancer between December 2014 and March 2017 were compared with a historical control group with RD in the preceding period since January 2011. HSD was introduced in conjunction with uptake of transanal TME. ResultsIn the RD group, 45/50 patients (90%) had a primary diverting stoma, and 3/40 patients (8%) in the HSD group. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 10 (20%) and three (8%) cases after a median follow-up of 36 and 19 months after RD and HSD, respectively. There was no postoperative mortality. An unintentional stoma beyond 1 year postoperative was present in six and two patients, respectively. One-year stoma-related readmission and reoperation rate (including reversal) after RD were 84% and 86%, respectively. Corresponding percentages were significantly lower after HSD (17% and 17%; P < 0.001). Total hospital stay within one year was median 11 days (IQR 8–19) versus 5 days (IQR 4–11), respectively (P < 0.001). ConclusionThis single institutional comparative cohort study shows that highly selective defunctioning of a low anastomosis in rectal cancer patients did not adversely affect incidence or consequences of anastomotic leakage with a substantial decrease in 1-year readmission and reintervention rate, leading to an overall significantly reduced hospital stay.

Perioperative outcomes for robotic total mesorectal excision after preoperative chemoradiation for rectal cancer.

732 Background: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) after preoperative chemoradiation therapy (P-CRT) for mid to low rectal cancer was shown to be safe and feasible by a recent randomized trial (COREAN trial). However, the safety and short-term efficacy for robotic assisted laparoscopic TME has not been demonstrated. This study is a review of the perioperative outcomes of robotic TME after P-CRT for mid to low rectal cancer at our institution. Methods: All patients that underwent robotic TME after P-CRT for rectal cancer were retrospectively reviewed in our prospectively maintained, IRB-approved surgical oncology database. All relevant demographic, clinical, operative, pathology and perioperative data were analyzed. These were compared to the COREAN trial results. Results: From 2010 to 2014, 42 patients underwent robotic TME for rectal cancer after P-CRT. Mean patient age was 60+/-13. Robotic low anterior resections (R-LAR) were performed in 69% and 31% had a robotic abdominoperineal resection (R-APR). A majority were obese patients as 74% had a BMI ≥ 25, and 50% had an ASA ≥ 3. Conversion to open rate was 9.5% (n = 4) but 3 of these were within the first 8 cases. Median estimated blood loss was 105 ml (50-400 ml). The 30-day major complication rate (Clavien III-IV) was 11.9% (n = 5) and 90-day rate was 14.2% (n = 6). One patient (2.4%) had an anastomotic leak. There were no mortalities within 90-days from operation. Median length of stay was 7 days (6-12 days). Pathological complete response was 19% while 24% had no response. The average number of lymph nodes harvested was 14.2+/-9.5. The circumferential resection margin was negative in 95.2% (n = 40) of patients. Conclusions: As compared to laparoscopic TME patients in the COREAN trial, the robotic patients in our series were more obese and had a higher ASA classification. Our conversion rate was slightly higher, but this was related to the learning curve. All other short-term outcomes were similar. It appears that robotic TME is safe and feasible after P-CRT even among a more obese and higher risk population than previously reported in large series.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: early results and medium-term oncological outcome.

Conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer management is now widely accepted as an alternative to open surgery, bestowing specific advantages without causing detriment to oncological outcome. Evolving from this, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been successfully utilized for the removal of colonic tumours, but the literature lacks data analysing the suitability of SILS for rectal cancer resection, particularly on oncological outcome. We report the medium-term oncological outcome from a prospective observational study of SILS for rectal cancer, including high and low anterior resections. A prospective electronic database was collated of all patients undergoing SILS rectal cancer resection in our institution, between 2009 and 2014. In addition to patient, tumour and operative data, histopathological and medium-term oncological end-points were recorded. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to analyse survival. Sixty-one patients underwent SILS for rectal cancer by high anterior resection (n = 34), low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) (n = 24) and low anterior resection with TME and hand-sewn colo-anal anastomosis (n = 3). The median operation time was 105 (37-280) min and 92% of cases were completed by SILS. The mean interval to resuming oral feeding was 11 h and the median length of stay was 2 (1-8) days. The median number of lymph nodes found by the histopathologist in the resected specimen was 18 (6-44) and all operations completely removed the tumour (R0 resection). At a median follow-up of 46 (16-64) months, eight (13%) patients developed metastatic disease, of whom three had local recurrence. Overall, three patients have died, of whom all had metastatic disease. Anterior resection with TME for rectal cancer can be safely performed using the SILS technique, with acceptable histopathological results and good oncological outcome.

PTH-279 Medium term oncological outcomes of single incision laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

Introduction Conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer management is now widely accepted as a suitable alternative to open surgery; bestowing specific advantages, without causing detriment to oncological outcome. Evolving from this, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been successfully utilised for the removal of colonic tumours. However, the literature lacks data analysing the suitability of SILS for rectal cancer resection, particularly in terms of oncological outcome. We report medium term oncological outcomes from a prospective observational study of SILS for rectal cancer, including both high and low anterior resections. Method A prospective electronic database was collated of all patients undergoing SILS rectal cancer resection in our institution, between 2009 and 2014. In addition to patient, tumour and operative data, histo-pathological and medium term oncological outcomes were recorded. Kaplan Meier curves were used to analyse survival, performed using SPSS® Statistics version 21.0 for Windows ® (IBM, Armonk, New York, USA). Results Sixty-one patients underwent SILS for rectal cancer: high anterior resection (34); Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) (24) and TME with hand sewn colo-anal anastomosis (3). Median operative time was 105 min (37–280 mins) and 92% of cases were completed via SILS. Mean time to diet was 11 h and median length of stay was 2 days (1–8 days). Median number of lymph nodes harvested was 18 (6–44) and all were R0 resections. After a median follow-up of 46 months (16–64 months), 8 patients developed further disease (13.1%), of whom 5 had liver metastases (8.2%) and 3 developed widespread metastatic disease and local recurrence (4.9%). Three patients have died (4.9%), all of whom had metastases. The mean time to recurrent disease diagnosis was 7 months (2–17months) and post-operative survival of those who died was 29 months, 33 months and 53 months respectively. Kaplan Meier Survival Curves for disease free survival (including local recurrence, metastases and death) are shown in Figure 1. Conclusion Anterior resection and TME for rectal cancer can be safely performed by the SILS technique, with appropriate histo-pathological results and, crucially, good oncological outcomes. SILS rectal cancer surgery may confer additional advantages over conventional multiport surgery, such as reduced operating time and length of hospital stay. Disclosure of interest None Declared.

The effect of diverting stoma on postoperative morbidity after low anterior resection for rectal cancer in patients treated within an ERAS program

BackgroundAnastomotic leakage (AL) is a serious complication after low anterior resection (LAR) with total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Whether the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS)-protocol influences the risk of short-term morbidity in relation to the use of a diverting stoma is unclear. MethodsBetween 2002 and 2011, 287 consecutive patients underwent LAR with TME for rectal cancer at Ersta Hospital, Sweden. All patients were treated according to the ERAS program and thereby included. Between 2002 and 2006 15% had a diverting stoma compared to 91 %, 2007 to 2011. ResultsOne hundred and thirty-nine patients were operated with a diverting stoma at primary surgery (S+), 148 patients were not (S−). The groups were comparable regarding pre- and peroperative data and patients' characteristics. Postoperative morbidity within 30 days after surgery (S+ 53% vs. S− 43%) and hospital stay (S+ 11 days vs. S− 9 days) did not differ. AL occurred in 22% of all patients. In a multivariate analysis, no significant difference in AL was found in relation to the use of a diverting stoma (S+ vs. S−, OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.34–1.19). Eleven patients (8%) in the S+ group underwent relaparotomy versus 22 (15%) in the S− group (p = 0.065). Total overall compliance to the ERAS program was 65%. Patients in S− had faster postoperative recovery. ConclusionA diverting stoma did not affect postoperative morbidity in this large cohort of patients undergoing LAR within an ERAS program. However, the routine use of a diverting stoma could be expected to delay postoperative recovery.

Predictors of fecal incontinence and related quality of life after a total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis for patients with rectal cancer.

PurposeAfter total mesorectal excision (TME) with primary anastomosis for patients with rectal cancer, the quality of life (QoL) may be decreased due to fecal incontinence. This study aimed to identify predictors of fecal incontinence and related QoL.MethodsPatients who underwent TME with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer between December 2008 and June 2012 completed the fecal incontinence quality of life scale (FIQoL) and Wexner incontinence score. Factors associated with these scores were identified using a linear regression analysis.ResultsA total of 80 patients were included. Multivariate analysis identified a diverting ileostomy (n = 58) as an independent predictor of an unfavorable outcome on the FIQoL subscale coping/behavior (P = 0.041). Ileostomy closure within and after 3 months resulted in median Wexner scores of 5.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 2.5-8.0) and 10.5 (IQR, 6.0-13.8), respectively (P < 0.001). The median FIQoL score was 15.0 (IQR, 13.1-16.0) for stoma closure within 3 months versus 12.0 (IQR, 10.5-13.9) for closure after 3 months (P = 0.001).ConclusionA diverting ileostomy is a predictor for an impaired FIQoL after a TME for rectal cancer. Stoma reversal within 3 months showed better outcomes than reversal after 3 months. Patients with a diverting ileostomy should be informed about the impaired QoL, even after stoma closure.

Minimally invasive techniques for an intersphincteric resection and lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in rectal cancer.

A proper total mesorectal excision (TME) technique is paramount to the successful treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer irrespective of operative method, including open and minimally-invasive approaches. The use of minimally-invasive surgery is of growing interest for the treatment of rectal cancer. The results of a recent, multicenter, randomized COREAN trial and of the COlorectal cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR II) trial suggested that high-quality laparoscopic TME in rectal cancer could be safely achieved through proper patient selection when performed by a skilled surgeon [1, 2]. Moreover, robot-assisted rectal surgery has recently been introduced as a minimallyinvasive alternative. Several retrospective analyses have suggested that robotic surgery has several technical advantages and may lead to favorable patient outcomes, although it still has a few drawbacks, including a long operation time and high cost [3-5]. The potential benefits of laparoscopic colorectal surgery compared with open surgery include faster recovery, lower morbidity, less pain, and a shorter hospital stay, and these can be achieved without compromising oncologic outcomes [6]. Although a laparoscopic colorectal resection is now an established treatment for colorectal cancer, a belief exists that laparoscopic colorectal surgery is not suitable for tumors that have invaded adjacent organs or structures due to its having high morbidities, conversion rates, and questionable oncologic outcomes. Especially, an open resection for an intersphincteric resection (ISR) and a lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) in rectal cancer remains a very troublesome and demanding procedure; therefore, it would become even more difficult when performed laparoscopically. More recently, with advances in modern laparoscopic technology, a minimally-invasive laparoscopic resection for these circumstances has been reported. I previously suggested that a laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer could be achieved with low rates of conversion and morbidity even in patients with a preoperativelysuspected T4 tumor, which is associated with the acceptable perioperative outcomes and the disease-free survival rates when compared with an open resection [7]. Moreover, I believe that patients with demanding conditions, such as duodenal or pancreatic invasion in right-sided colon cancer, complex pelvic irregularities or

Modern rectal cancer surgery—Total mesorectal excision—The standard of care

The literature has repeatedly shown the superiority of total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer in reducing the incidence of local recurrence (LR) and improving long-term survival compared to conventional blunt rectal dissection. This article reviews the history of surgery for rectal cancer, supports TME as the standard of care in obtaining a negative circumferential margin (CRM) for mid- and lower-third rectal cancers, discusses the drawbacks of TME, the role of tumor-specific mesorectal excision for upper-third rectal cancers and laparoscopic TME, and emphasizes the need for a selective role of chemoradiation with TME for rectal cancer. The need for standardizing TME in the United States with pathological specimen quality analysis and reporting of the completeness of the TME specimen is also emphasized.

Laparoscopic vs Open Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Clinical Comparative Study in a Government Sector Hospital

Aims and objectives: To assess feasibility, advantages, oncological safety, cost-effectiveness and short-term results of laparoscopic vs open total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer in a government sector hospital. Patients and methods: This comparative nonrandomized retrospective study analyzes the data of 70 patients with rectal cancer treated with low anterior resection (LAR) or abdominoperineal resection (APR) from May 2007 to June 2012. Of these 40 patients underwent laparoscopic TME and 30 underwent open TME. Both the groups were comparable. Results: Laparoscopic surgery took longer to perform (200 vs 150 min), but was accompanied by less blood loss (200 vs 800 ml) and fewer postoperative complications. Enteric function recovered sooner after laparoscopy than open surgery.Hospital stay was shorter for patients who underwent a laparoscopic surgery (7 vs 10 days). The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was greater in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (12 ± 3 vs 9 ± 2). Mean follow-up time was 30 months (range: 28-32 months). No local recurrence was found. Conclusion: This study shows that laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer is a safe and feasible technique with some short-term benefits over open TME.