Citation: | Chen Junxing, Xu Jianhua, Lin Jian'an, et al. Clinical efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted intersphincteric resection with different surgical approaches for low rectal cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2022, 21(6): 779-787. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20220419-00220 |
To investigate the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted inters-phincteric resection (ISR) with different surgical approaches for low rectal cancer.
The retrospective cohort study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 90 patients with low rectal cancer who were admitted to the Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University from January 2016 to December 2020 were collected. There were 58 males and 32 females, aged (60±9)years. Of 90 patients, 60 cases underwent laparoscopic assisted ISR with transpelvic approach, 30 cases underwent laparoscopic assisted ISR with transabdominal and transanal mixed approach. Observation indicators: (1) clinicopathological characteristics of patients with transpelvic approach and mixed approach; (2) intraoperative and postoperative conditions of patients with transpelvic approach and mixed approach; (3) postoperative complications of patients with transpelvic approach and mixed approach; (4) follow-up. Follow-up was conducted by telephone interview and outpatient examination once every 3 months within postoperative 3 years, once every six months in the postoperative 3 to 5 years and once a year after postoperative 5 years to detect tumor recurrence and metastasis, and survival of patients.Follow-up was up to March 2021 or patient death. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean±SD, and the t test was used for comparison between groups. Measurement data with skewed distribution were expressed as M(range), and comparison between groups was conducted using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test. Count data were expressed as absolute numbers or percentages, and comparison between groups was performed using the chi-square test or Fisher exact probability. Comparison of ordinal data was analyzed by the non-parametric rank sum test. Kaplan-Meier method was used to draw survival curves and calculate survival rates, and survival analysis was performed by the Log-Rank test.
(1) Clinicopathological characteristics of patients with transpelvic approach and mixed approach. The sex (males, females), distance from the distal margin of tumor to anal margin were 34, 26, (4.5±0.5)cm for patients with transpelvic approach, versus 24, 6, (3.5±0.5)cm for patients with mixed approach, respectively, showing significant differences between them (χ2=4.75, t=8.35, P<0.05). (2) Intraoperative and postoperative conditions of patients with transpelvic approach and mixed approach. The operation time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, distance from the postoperative anastomosis to anal margin were (187±9)minutes, 50(range, 20‒200)mL, (3.4±0.7)cm for patients with transpelvic approach, versus (256±12)minuets, 100(range, 20‒200)mL, (2.6±0.7)cm for patients with mixed approach, showing significant differences between them (t=‒26.99, Z=‒2.48, t=4.67, P<0.05). None of the 90 patients had a positive distal margin. The stoma reversal rates of patients with transpelvic and mixed approach were 93.3%(56/60) and 90.0%(27/30), respectively. Of the 60 patients with transpelvic approach, 3 cases had no stoma reversal due to anastomotic complications, and 1 case was not yet to the reversal time. Of the 30 patients with mixed approach, 2 cases had no stoma reversal due to anastomotic complications, and 1 case was not yet to the reversal time. The 1-, 3-month Wexner scores after stoma reversal were 15(range, 12‒17), 12(range, 10‒14) for patients with transpelvic approach, versus 16(range, 14‒18), 14(range, 12‒16) for patients with mixed approach, showing significant differences between them (Z=‒4.97, ‒5.49, P<0.05). The 6-month Wexner score after stoma reversal was 10(range, 9‒12) for patients with transpelvic approach, versus 11(range, 8‒12) for patients with mixed approach, showing no significant difference between them (Z=‒1.59, P>0.05). (3) Postoperative complications of patients with transpelvic approach and mixed approach. The complications occurred to 16 patients with transpelvic approach and 9 patients with mixed approach, respectively, showing no significant difference between them (χ2=0.11, P>0.05). Cases with postoperative anastomotic fistula, cases with anastomotic bleeding, cases with anastomotic stenosis, cases with intestinal obstruction, cases with incision infection, cases with urinary retention, cases with pelvic infection, cases with pulmonary infection, cases with incisional hernia, cases with chylous fistula, cases with abdominal and pelvic abscess were 5, 2, 1, 7, 0, 1, 5, 3, 1, 1, 1 for patients with transpelvic approach, versus 6, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1 for patients with mixed approach, showing no significant difference between them (P>0.05). The same patient could have multiple postoperative complications. (4) Follow-up. All the 90 patients were followed up for 27(range, 6‒62)months. The follow-up time of 60 patients with transpelvic approach was 27(range, 8‒62)months. The follow-up time of 30 patients with mixed approach was 28(range, 6‒53)months. Of the 60 patients with transpelvic approach, 3 cases had local recurrence, 4 cases had liver metastasis, 3 cases had lung metastasis, and all of them survived with tumor. Of the 30 patients with mixed approach, 1 case had local recurrence, 2 cases had liver metastasis, 1 case had lung metastasis, and all of them survived with tumor. There was no death. The 3-year disease-free survival rates of patients with transpelvic approach and mixed approach were 84.7% and 87.9%, respectively, showing no significant difference between them (χ2=0.39, P>0.05).
Lapa-roscopic assisted ISR via transpelvic approach or mixed approach for low rectal cancer are safe and feasible. Compared with transanal mixed approach, the transpelvic approach of laparoscopic-assisted ISR has shorter operation time, less volume of intraoperative blood loss and longer distance from the postoperative anastomosis to anal margin.
[1] |
魏东.低位直肠癌外科治疗现状与展望[J].世界华人消化杂志,2016,24(21):3238‑3247. DOI:10.11569/wcjd.v24.i21. 3238.
|
[2] |
MilesWE. The present position of the radical abdomino-perineal operation for cancer of the rectum in regard to mortality and post‑operative recurrence[J]. Proc R Soc Med,1931,24(7):989‑991.
|
[3] |
SchiesselR, Karner‑HanuschJ, HerbstF, et al. Intersphincteric resection for low rectal tumours[J]. Br J Surg,1994,81(9):1376‑1378. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.1800810944.
|
[4] |
张忠涛.中国结直肠外科20年回顾与展望[J].中华消化外科杂志,2022,21(1):53-56. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20220104-00005.
|
[5] |
WatanabeM, TeramotoT, HasegawaH, et al. Laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection combined with per anum inters-phincteric rectal dissection for lower rectal cancer[J]. Dis Colon Rectum,2000,43(10Suppl):S94‑S97. DOI: 10.1007/BF02237232.
|
[6] |
黄胜辉,池畔,林惠铭,等.腹腔镜与开放经腹括约肌间切除术治疗低位直肠癌的近期疗效比较[J].中华胃肠外科杂志,2016,19(8):923‑927. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0274. 2016.08.025.
|
[7] |
HamadaM, MatsumuraT, MatsumotoT, et al. Video. Advan-tages of the laparoscopic approach for intersphincteric resection[J]. Surg Endosc,2011,25(5):1661‑1663. DOI:10. 1007/s00464-010-1451-x.
|
[8] |
RödelC, HofheinzR, FokasE. Rectal cancer: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy[J]. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol,2016,30(4):629‑639. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpg.2016.06.004.
|
[9] |
金珊,谭诗生,李杭,等.术前同步放化疗联合全直肠系膜切除术治疗中低位局部晚期直肠癌的疗效[J].中国肿瘤临床与康复,2015,22(7):824‑826. DOI:10.13455/j.cnki.cjcor. 2015.07.018.
|
[10] |
DaydeD, TanakaI, JainR, et al. Predictive and prognostic molecular biomarkers for response to neoadjuvant chemo-radiation in rectal cancer[J]. Int J Mol Sci,2017,18(3):573. DOI: 10.3390/ijms18030573.
|
[11] |
HawkinsAT, AlbuttK, WisePE, et al. Abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer in the twenty‑first century: indications, techniques, and outcomes[J]. J Gastrointest Surg,2018,22(8):1477‑1487. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-018-3750-9.
|
[12] |
SaitoN, MoriyaY, ShirouzuK, et al. Intersphincteric resection in patients with very low rectal cancer: a review of the Japanese experience[J]. Dis Colon Rectum,2006,49(10Suppl):S13‑S22. DOI: 10.1007/s10350-006-0598-y.
|
[13] |
TsukamotoS, MiyakeM, ShidaD, et al. Intersphincteric resection has similar long‑term oncologic outcomes compared with abdominoperineal resection for low rectal can-cer without preoperative therapy: results of propensity score analyses[J]. Dis Colon Rectum,2018,61(9):1035-1042. DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001155.
|
[14] |
TsukamotoS, KanemitsuY, ShidaD, et al. Comparison of the clinical results of abdominoperanal intersphincteric resection and abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer[J]. Int J Colorectal Dis,2017,32(5):683‑689. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-017-2755-2.
|
[15] |
宋娟,唐波.达芬奇机器人系统联合腹腔镜在低位直肠癌手术中的应用进展[J].局解手术学杂志,2018,27(5):380‑383.
|
[16] |
ParkSY, ChoiGS, ParkJS, et al. Short‑term clinical outcome of robot‑assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a retrospective comparison with conventional laparoscopy[J]. Surg Endosc,2013,27(1):48‑55. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2405-2.
|
[17] |
ZhangX, WuQ, HuT, et al. Laparoscopic versus conventional open surgery in intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta‑analysis[J]. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A,2018,28(2):189‑200. DOI: 10.1089/lap.2017.0495.
|
[18] |
ToyoshimaA, NishizawaT, SunamiE, et al. Narrow pelvic inlet plane area and obesity as risk factors for anastomotic leakage after intersphincteric resection[J]. World J Gastrointest Surg,2020,12(10):425‑434. DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v12.i10.425.
|
[19] |
ShirouzuK, MurakamiN, AkagiY. Intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: a review of the updated literature[J]. Ann Gastroenterol Surg,2017,1(1):24‑32. DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12003.
|
[20] |
Abdel‑GawadW, ZaghloulA, FakhrI, et al. Evaluation of the frequency and pattern of local recurrence following intersphincteric resection for ultra‑low rectal cancer[J]. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst,2014,26(2):87‑92. DOI: 10.1016/j.jnci.2014.02.001.
|
[21] |
杨滢,阮小毛,阮勇,等.结直肠癌手术患者术后切口感染病原菌及危险因素调查分析[J].解放军医药杂志,2020,32(11):35-39. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-140X.2020.11.008.
|
[22] |
王爱华,魏晓军.结直肠癌患者术后切口感染的病原菌分布特点及影响因素分析[J].临床误诊误治,2019,32(6):88-91.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-3429.2019.06.021.
|
[23] |
AkasuT, TakawaM, YamamotoS, et al. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage following intersphincteric resection for very low rectal adenocarcinoma[J]. J Gastrointest Surg,2010,14(1):104‑111. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-009-1067-4.
|
[24] |
LeeSH, KimDH, LimSW. Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta‑analysis[J]. Int J Colorectal Dis,2018,33(12):1741‑1753. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-018-3145-0.
|
[25] |
LaurentC, PaumetT, LeblancF, et al. Intersphincteric resec-tion for low rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs open surgery approach[J]. Colorectal Dis,2012,14(1):35‑43. DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2010.02528.x.
|
[26] |
VaizeyCJ, CarapetiE, CahillJA, et al. Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems[J]. Gut,1999,44(1):77‑80. DOI: 10.1136/gut.44.1.77.
|
[27] |
QuH, LiuY, BiDS. Clinical risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal can-cer: a systematic review and meta‑analysis[J]. Surg Endosc,2015,29(12):3608‑3617. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4117-x.
|
[28] |
YamadaK, SaikiY, TakanoS, et al. Long‑term results of intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer in Japan[J]. Surg Today,2019,49(4):275‑285. DOI:10.1007/s005 95-018-1754-4.
|
[29] |
ButiurcaVO, MolnarC, CopotoiuC, et al. Long term results of modified intersphincteric resections for low rectal cancer: a single center experience[J]. Medicina (Kaunas),2019,55(12):764. DOI: 10.3390/medicina55120764.
|