ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of robotic intersphincteric resection (ISR) for rectal cancer.MethodsA literature search was performed using the China biomedical literature database, Chinese CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library. The retrieval time was from the establishment of databases to April 1, 2019. Related interest indicators were brought into meta-analysis by Review Manager 5.2 software.ResultsA total of 510 patients were included in 5 studies, including 273 patients in the robot group and 237 patients in the laparoscopic group. As compared to the laparoscopic group, the robot group had significantly longer operative time [MD=43.27, 95%CI (16.48, 70.07), P=0.002], less blood loss [MD=–19.98.27, 95%CI (–33.14, –6.81), P=0.003], lower conversion rate [MD=0.20, 95%CI (0.04, –0.95), P=0.04], less lymph node harvest [MD=–1.71, 95%CI (–3.21, –0.21), P=0.03] and shorter hospital stay [MD=–1.61, 95%CI (–2.26, –0.97), P<0.000 01]. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the first flatus [MD=–0.01, 95%CI (–0.48, 0.46), P=0.96], time to diet [MD=–0.20, 95%CI (–0.67, 0.27), P=0.41], incidence of complications [OR=0.76, 95%CI (0.50, 1.14), P=0.18], distal resection margin [MD=0.00, 95%CI (–0.17, 0.17), P=0.98] and positive rate of circumferential resection margin [OR=0.61, 95%CI (0.27, 1.37), P=0.23].ConclusionsRobotic and laparoscopic ISR for rectal cancer shows comparable perioperative outcomes. Compared with laparoscopic ISR, robotic ISR has the advantages of less blood loss, lower conversion rate, and longer operation times. These findings suggest that robotic ISR is a safe and effective technique for treating low rectal cancer.
ObjectiveBased on the latest version of the Database from Colorectal Cancer(DACCA), this study analyzed the long-term effect of neoadjuvant therapy combined with intersphincteric resection (ISR) in patients with rectal cancer. MethodsAccording to the established screening criteria, clinical data of 944 patients with rectal cancer admitted from January 2009 to December 2020 were collected from the DACCA updated on March 21, 2022, to explore the influencing factors for overall survival (OS) and disease specific survival (DSS) of rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy combined with ISR, by Cox proportional hazard regression model. Results① The 3-year OS and DSS survival rates of neoadjuvant therapy combined with ISR for rectal cancer were 89.2% and 90.4%, respectively, and the 5-year OS and DSS survival rates were 83.9% and 85.4%, respectively. ② For different ISR surgical methods and neoadjuvant therapy plans, there were no significant differences in OS and DSS (P>0.05), but there were significant differences in OS and DSS among different ypTNM stage groups (P<0.001), patients with ypTNM 0–Ⅱ had better OS and DSS. ③ BMI, ypTNM stage and R0 resection were influencing factors for OS and DSS (P<0.05). ④ The overall incidence of postoperative complications was low, including 6.4% (60/944) within 30 days, 7.5% (71/944) within half a year and 3.3% (31/944) over half a year after operation. ConclusionsIn the comprehensive treatment of patients with low/ultra-low rectal cancer, neoadjuvant therapy combined with ISR can achieve relatively stable and good long-term oncological efficacy, and the incidence of short-term postoperative complications is not high, which is one of the options.
ObjectiveTo analyze the relation between preoperative staging and surgical decision-making in rectal cancer patients from the West China Colorectal Cancer Database (DACCA) and to identify key factors influencing the selection of surgical approach. MethodsBased on the updated DACCA dataset as of April 24, 2024, the patients with rectal cancer were included. Chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the correlation between preoperative staging [(y)cTNM stage] and the selection of sphincter-preserving surgery or intersphincteric resection (ISR). Additional factors, including age, body mass index (BMI), tumor location, and nutritional score, were assessed for their impact on surgical choices. ResultsA total of 2 733 rectal cancer patients were included. Preoperative (y)cTNM staging distribution was as follows: 23 (0.8%) at stage 0, 388 (14.2%) at stage Ⅰ, 760 (27.8%) at stage Ⅱ, 873 (31.9%) at stage Ⅲ, and 689 (25.2%) at stage Ⅳ. The preoperative stage Ⅱ–Ⅳ were the independent risk factors for both the choices of sphincter-preserving surgery and ISR [stage Ⅱ: sphincter-preserving surgery: OR(95%CI)=13.634 (4.952, 37.540), P<0.001; ISR: OR (95%CI)=3.097 (2.108, 4.551), P<0.001. stage Ⅲ: sphincter-preserving surgery: OR (95%CI)=14.677 (5.339, 40.345), P<0.001; ISR: OR (95%CI)=2.985 (2.042, 4.363), P<0.001. stage Ⅳ: OR (95%CI)=25.653 (9.320, 70.610), P<0.001; ISR: OR (95%CI)=4.445 (3.015, 6.555), P<0.001]. The low/ultra-low tumor location was an independent risk factor for choice of sphincter-preserving surgery [OR (95%CI)=2.038 (1.489, 2.791), P<0.001], but which was an independent protective factor for the choice of ISR [OR (95%CI)=0.013 (0.009, 0.019), P<0.001]. ConclusionsResults of this study are consistent with clinical practice, indicating that preoperative staging is the core basis for surgical decision-making in rectal cancer. With the progression of staging, patients are more inclined to choose non-sphincter-preserving and non-ISR procedures. Although low/ultralow tumors pose great challenges for anal preservation, the proportion of ISR selection remains relatively high. The anatomical location of the tumor and nutritional status also significantly affect surgical selection, necessitating comprehensive preoperative evaluation.
ObjectiveTo compare the perioperative safety and oncologic efficacy of transanal endoscopic intersphincteric resection (TaE-ISR) and the completely transabdominal approach intersphincteric resection (CTA-ISR) for the treatment of ultra-low rectal cancer. MethodsClinical data of patients who underwent TaE-ISR or CTA-ISR at Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, from June 2022 to June 2023, were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 38 cases of TaE-ISR and 16 cases of CTA-ISR were included. Comparison of surgery-related indexes (including operation time, injury of adjacent organs, protective stoma, and placement of anal tube), postoperative recovery and complications, and oncological results (including positive rate of circumferential resection margin, positive rate of distal resection margin, and number of lymph nodes) were compared between the 2 groups. ResultsThe distance of the lower edge of the tumor from the anal verge was lower in the TaE-ISR group than that in the CTA-ISR group [4.0 (3.4, 4.5) cm vs. 4.9 (4.1, 5.9) cm, P<0.001]. A longer duration of the surgery [(177.18±37.24) min vs (146.25±38.86) min], a higher rate of the anal tube [97.4% (37/38) vs 56.3% (7/16)], a higher rate of protective stoma [94.7% (36/38) vs 12.5% (2/16)], and a higher rate of transanal specimen extraction [92.1% (35/38) vs 0% (0/16)], faster time to first postoperative semi-liquid diet [4 (3, 5) d vs 6 (5, 6) d] were observed in the TaE-ISR group (P<0.05). No adjacent organ injuries occurred in the TaE-ISR group, whereas 2 patients in the CTA-ISR group had intraoperative adjacent organ injuries (0% vs 12.5%), the difference was statistically significant (P=0.026). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of postoperative hospitalization, postoperative time to first flatus, Clavien-Dindo grading of postoperative complications, the incidence of anastomotic leakage and anastomotic stenosis, distal margin distance, the total number of lymph nodes cleared, and the number of positive lymph nodes (P>0.05). Postoperative specimens in all cases were adequate for distal margins and negative for circumferential margins.ConclusionTaE-ISR and CTA-ISR can both be applied to anus-preserving surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer, but TaE-ISR may be a more reasonable approach than CTA-ISR when the lower edge of the tumor is closer to the anal verge.
ObjectiveTo investigate current status of anal sphincter preservation in low rectal cancer.MethodThe recent literatures on the progress of anal sphincter preservation in the low rectal cancer were reviewed.ResultsIn the past, the surgical treatment of the low rectal cancer was mainly based on the Miles. With the deepening of the anatomical understanding, the improvement of surgical concepts, and the development of minimally invasive techniques, the treatment concept of the low rectal cancer had gradually entered the era of retaining anal and anal function. At present, many surgical methods including the transanal local excision, intersphincteric resection, transanal total mesorectal excision, etc. could be applied to the anal sphincter preservation of the lower rectal cancer, but the advantages and disadvantages of each surgical procedure and the scope of application were slightly different.ConclusionsAlthough there are many surgical procedures that can be applied to patients with low rectal cancer, none of them can achieve perfection in terms of retaining anal and anal function, reducing complications and recurrence rates, and improving survival. It is believed that with continuous understanding of rectal anatomy by surgeons, emergence of various neoadjuvant chemoradiation and new devices, and more anal sphincter preservation procedures and even artificial anal surgery, treatment of low rectal cancer will also be more good care for anal and maintenance function, so that patients can obtain a higher quality and a long-term survival opportunity.