Comparison of short-term efficacy of transanal total mesorectal excision and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in low rectal cancer

Background/objectiveThe transanal total mesorectal excision(TaTME) of rectal malignancies is largely referred to as treatment of mid to low, especially low rectal cancer. This study was to compare the short-term efficacy of TaTME and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for low rectal cancer.MethodsA prospective study of patients with low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical surgery at the General Surgery of Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital from January 2017 to December 2019 was performed. The general information, perioperative results and pathological results of the two groups were compared.ResultsA total of 64 patients were included in the study, 32 in the TaTME group and 32 in the LaTME group. The clinical characteristics of the two groups was comparable (P > 0.05). The operation time in the TaTME group was longer than that in the LaTME group (212.59 ± 28.71min vs 187.66 ± 27.15min, P = 0.001), no significant differences were seen in the conversion rate, intraoperative complications, morbidity, serious morbidity, anastomotic leak, unplanned reoperation and hospital stay(P > 0.05). The circumferential resection margin (CRM) distance in the TaTME group was longer than that in the LaTME group (6.81 ± 2.99 mm vs 5.21 ± 3.06 mm, P = 0.039). The inter-group difference in terms of harvested lymph nodes, mesorectum integrity, CRM involvement, DRM distance, R1 resection, complete remission, pathological T stage, pathological N stage and pathological TNM stage was not significant (P > 0.05).ConclusionsTaTME is a promising surgical technique and maybe offers a safe and feasible alternative to LaTME in managing low rectal cancer.     

腹腔镜全直肠系膜联合经肛门内括约肌切除治疗低位直肠癌的疗效探讨

目的探讨腹腔镜全直肠系膜（TME）联合经肛门内括约肌切除（ISR）治疗低位直肠癌的疗效,评估手术的安全性。方法回顾性分析2009年1月至2012年12月采用腹腔镜TME联合ISR术治疗的42例低位直肠肿瘤患者（腹腔镜组）,同时选取2006年1月至2012年12月开腹行TME联合ISR术治疗的44例低位直肠肿瘤患者（开腹组）。比较分析两组患者的一般资料、手术情况、临床病理特点、术后并发症和术后生活质量。结果两组患者的一般情况和术后临床病理特点相近。腹腔镜组患者均顺利完成手术,总体手术时间（min）明显小于开腹组（181.2±65.4 vs 216.6±82.9,t=2.192,P=0.031）,出血量（ml）亦明显小于开腹组（83.2±37.5 vs 117.4±33.0,t=4.495,P〈0.01）。4例低位直肠癌患者发生吻合口瘘,经保守治疗治愈,并发症发生率与开腹组相比差异无统计学意义。两组患者肛门功能自我评价以及KIRWAN分级差异均无统计学意义。结论对于术前评估早中期低位甚至超低位直肠癌,特别是肿瘤没有侵犯肛门内括约肌的患者,采用腹腔镜TME联合ISR术是安全可行的,提高了保肛成功率,保留患者术后肛门括约肌功能,改善生活质量。     

腹腔镜与开腹TME保肛术治疗中低位直肠癌的对照研究

目的 评价腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除(TME)保肛术治疗中低位直肠癌的可行性、安全性和治疗效果.方法 回顾性分析2008年2月-2010年6月由同一组手术医师完成的37例腹腔镜TME与45例开腹手术保肛治疗中低位直肠癌患者的临床资料,比较两组的手术情况、并发症及近期疗效.结果 腹腔镜组术中失血量(60.6±20.9) mL、术后肠功能恢复时间(3.3±0.6)d、住院时间(9.2±2.8)d、吻合口瘘等并发症发病率(8.1％)均小于开腹组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).腹腔镜组和开腹组肿瘤下切缘长度(5.1±2.3vs4.3±2.0)cm、淋巴结清扫数(14.5±7.1vs15.1±5.6)枚,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),腹腔镜组和开腹组保肛率分别为(91.9％ vs 73.3％),差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05).术后随访6 ～ 36个月,腹腔镜组和开腹组患者复发率和总生存率分别是10.8％和11.1％、94.6％和91.1％,差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 腹腔镜TME保肛手术治疗中低位直肠癌是一种安全的术式,肿瘤根治效果与开腹手术相当,且提高了保肛率,并发症的发病率低,术后恢复情况优于开腹手术,值得临床推广应用.     

腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除治疗低位直肠癌(附198例临床资料报告)

目的探讨腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除治疗低位直肠癌的可行性和安全性。方法回顾分析198例腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除治疗低位直肠癌病例资料。结果全组无手术死亡,无中转开腹。平均手术时间（211.5±69.2）min,中位出血量80（50～200）mL,平均切除淋巴结数为（11.5±6.4）枚,平均肛门排气时间（2.8±1.4）d,平均可下地行走时间（1.6±0.9）d,平均术后住院时间（11.8±6.4）d。术后并发症发生率为20.71%,最常见为肠梗阻（占并发症的24.4%）。中位随访时间为26.1（13.6～45.2）个月,随访率86.9%。33例出现术后复发转移,其中吻合口复发2例,盆腔局部复发3例,腹腔广泛转移4例,远处转移24例。死亡共37例,其中死于肿瘤相关因素28例,死于非肿瘤相关因素9例。5例带瘤生存。结论腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除治疗低位直肠癌不仅具有疼痛轻、恢复快等优点,在技术上也是安全可行的,而最终的结果仍有待于大量的、长期的前瞻性随机对照研究。     

Quality of life after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND: After total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, many surgeons try to avoid an abdominoperineal resection (APR) by performing a transanally double stapled low colo-rectal anastomosis (LRA), frequently without a pouch. This policy is mainly based on the assumption that the quality of life after such LRA is higher than after APR. It has been suggested that a better functional outcome and therefore a higher quality of life might be achieved by a colo-anal J-pouch anastomosis (CPA). The aim of this study was to assess quality of life among disease-free survivors after APR, LRA and CPA. METHODS: The charts of 301 consecutive patients who had undergone surgery for cancer in the middle or lower third of the rectum were analysed. Two hundred four patients were eligible for inclusion. The quality of life among these patients was assessed using one generic (EQ-5D) and two disease-specific questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-CR38). RESULTS: The response rate was 82%. The median follow-up was 31 months. Overall, quality of life was good but CPA patients had better quality of life scores than APR and LRA patients. This difference was not only due to the better functional outcome but also to the lower incidence of disturbed micturition and sexual problems in the CPA group. CONCLUSION: The quality of life after colo-anal J-pouch anastomosis is better than after abdominoperineal resection (APR) and low colo-rectal anastomosis (LRA). The quality of life after APR is similar to that after LRA.     

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

Background With advanced stereoscopic vision, lack of tremor, and the ability to rotate the instruments surgeons find that robotic systems are ideal laparoscopic tools. Because of its high operating cost, however, robotic surgery should be reserved to procedures in which the technology can be of maximum benefit, usually when precise dissections in confined spaces are required. Because conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision is a challenging procedure, we have sought to assess the utility of the DaVinci robotic system in laparoscopic low anterior resections for cancer of the rectum. Methods Between November 2004 and May 2005 robotic-assisted low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision was performed on six consecutive patients with rectal cancer. These cases were compared with six consecutive low anterior resections performed with conventional laparoscopic techniques by the same surgeon. Results There were no conversions in either group. Operative and pathological data, complications, and hospital stay were similar in the two groups. Robotic operations appeared to cause less strain for the surgeon. Conclusions Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer is feasible in experienced hands. This technique may facilitate minimally invasive radical rectal surgery. Presented, in part, at the 14th International Congress of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, September 14–17, 2005 San Diego, California.     

腹腔镜直肠全系膜切除术治疗中、低位直肠癌的临床安全性对比研究

目的：探讨腹腔镜直肠全系膜切除治疗中、低位直肠癌手术的安全性。方法：回顾性对比分析我院2002年12月～2005年12月开腹直肠癌全系膜切除的病例（开腹组52例），以及2003年1月～2006年6月腹腔镜直肠癌全系膜切除的病例（腹腔镜组49例）。结果：腹腔镜组与开腹组一般资料差异无显著性。与开腹组比较，腹腔镜组术中出血量少[直肠癌前切除术（160±106）ml（n=37）vs（298±186）ml（n=36），t=-3．908，P=0．000；腹会阴联合直肠癌根治术（180±153）ml（n=10）vs（356±170）ml（n=14），t=-2．604，P=0．016]。腹腔镜组肠道功能恢复时间早于开腹手术组[（2．4±1．8）dVS（3．6±1．5）d，t=-3．648，P=0．000]。腹腔镜组总并发症的发生率低于开腹组[14．3％（7／49）g844．2％（23／52），x^2=10．834，P=0．001]。两组清扫淋巴结的数目无差异（12．7±6．5VS13．6±7．0，t=-0．668，P=0．505），下切缘均为阴性。腹腔镜组45例（91．8％）随访2～42个月，开腹组47例（90．4％）随访6～42个月，局部复发率分别4．4％（2／45）、4．3％（2／47）。结论：腹腔镜直肠全系膜切除治疗中、低位直肠癌安全、可行。     

腹腔镜下全直肠系膜切除治疗低位直肠癌的体会

【摘要】〓目的〓总结腹腔镜下全直肠系膜切除治疗低位直肠癌的手术体会。方法〓选择我院2007年3月至2012年6月收治的低位直肠癌患者,根据手术方法不同,选择腹腔镜下全直肠系膜切除术50例(腹腔镜组)和开腹下实施直肠癌全直肠系膜切除术50例(开腹组),对两组病人术中出血量、手术时间、术后肛门排气时间、住院时间、切除淋巴结总数、住院总费用、随访结果等资料进行对比及临床分析。 结果〓腹腔镜组术中出血量、手术时间、术后肛门排气时间、住院时间均较开腹组少(P均<0.05);术中淋巴结清扫、直肠远切端距癌灶最下缘距离与开腹组没有明显差异(P>0.05);腔镜组的术后并发症及术后复发均较开腹组少(P<0.05)。结论〓腹腔镜下全直肠系膜切除治疗低位直肠癌与开腹组相比,腹腔镜组在减少损伤及术后恢复方面优于开腹组。而且腹腹镜组术后复发率低于开腹组。     

The oncological safety of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with sphincter preservation for rectal carcinoma

Background Although experience of laparoscopic treatment of rectal carcinoma has been reported, there is no evidence of its oncological safety because most procedures included partial mesorectal excision or abdominoperineal excision and quality of surgery is lacking. The aim of this study was to assess the oncological results of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with sphincter preservation for rectal carcinoma.Methods From 2000 to 2003, 144 patients underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis for mid and low rectal adenocarcinoma. There were 88 men and 56 women, with a median age of 65 years. The tumor was located at 5.5 cm (range 1–12) from the anal verge and was classified uT1T2 in 25 cases and uT3 in 119 cases. One hundred twenty patients received preoperative radiotherapy.Results Postoperative mortality and morbidity were 1% and 34% respectively. Conversion was 14% (n = 20). Macroscopic assessment of the specimen (n = 92) showed an intact mesorectum in 88% of the cases. The distal margin and the circumferential margin were safe in 98% and 94% of the cases, respectively. A complete microscopic excision, i.e., R0 resection, was achieved in 134 cases (93%). Pathological data were similar to those of an open match group. With a median follow-up of 18 months, there was no port-site recurrence and two patients had local recurrence (1.4%). The 3-year overall and disease- free survival rates were 89% and 77%, respectively.Conclusions A high quality of surgical excision can be achieved by the laparoscopic dissection, suggesting that this approach in treatment of rectal carcinoma is oncologically safe.     

腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术联合经肛门内括约肌切除术治疗超低位直肠癌

目的探讨腹腔镜全系膜切除术（TME）联合经肛门内括约肌切除术（ISR）对超低位直肠癌的治疗效果。方法对接受腹腔镜TME联合经肛ISR手术的35例超低位直肠癌患者的临床和随访资料进行回顾性分析。结果35例患者肿瘤下缘距肛门2～5（平均3．4）cm;高、中分化腺癌32例,绒毛状腺瘤癌变3例;pTNMⅠ期16例,ⅡA期15例,ⅢA期3例,ⅢB期1例。术后末端回肠造口狭窄1例,吻合口瘘3例（均为未行末端回肠造E1者）。经4～49（中位时间16）个月的随访．1例患者出现吻合口复发．1例死于肝转移。随访满1年的19例患者术后1年排粪次数为1～4次／d．控便时间5min以上。结论腹腔镜TME联合经肛ISR治疗超低位直肠癌具有根治、保肛和微创的优点!侣廊进行严格的病例选择．     

腹腔镜下直肠癌全直肠系膜切除手术

目的 探讨腹腔镜下直肠癌全直肠系膜切除(total mesorectal excision，TME)手术的可行性。方法 自2000年3月至2003年11月共行腹腔镜下直肠癌TME手术67例，其中直肠癌前切除术(anterior resection，AR)45例，直肠癌腹会阴联合切除术(abdominal pelineal resection，APR)22例。结果 本组67例患者按TME原则采用腹腔镜完成直肠癌手术，术中出血量10～50ml，手术时间2.5～5．0h，无术中死亡，术后持续胃肠减压时间8～24h，平均术后24～48h开始进食水，术后1～3d下床活动，术后1～5d开始排便。术后住院时间7～10d。术后随访时间3～43个月，2例患者局部复发，2例患者肝转移；术后因局部复发和肝转移各死亡1例，失访3例；有19例术后不足1年的患者，未发现转移及复发。结论 只要有较好的开腹TME手术经验和腹腔镜操作技能，腹腔镜下直肠癌TME手术是可行的。     

Surgical treatment of lower rectal cancer with sphincter preservation using handsewn coloanal anastomosis

The present study was designed to evaluate the technical feasibility and oncologic results of performing handsewn coloanal anastomosis (CAA). A total of 46 patients treated for lower rectal cancer using CAA were retrospectively studied, and the oncologic results were compared with those of 105 patients treated with abdominoperineal resection (APR). CAA was performed in patients who had both good mobility of the tumor and a distal clearance margin of more than 1.0 cm. No significant difference was noted in the mortality rates following the two operations (CAA 2.2% vs APR 1.9%). Pelvic recurrence was detected in two patients (4.5%) after CAA and in six patients (7.2%) after APR. The 5-year survival rate after CAA was 79.2% and that after APR was 72.6%. No significant difference was noted in the incidence of pelvic recurrence or the survival rates between the two operations. These results show that CAA could be an excellent reconstructive option in the treatment of lower rectal carcinoma for selected patients.     

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision can be performed on a nonselective basis in patients with rectal cancer with excellent medium‐term results

Aim Concerns exist regarding laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery due to increased rates of open conversion, complications and circumferential resection margin positivity. This study reports medium‐term results from consecutive unselected cases in a single surgeon series. Method The results of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer over a 9‐year period within the context of an evolving ‘enhanced recovery protocol’ (ERP) were reviewed from analysis of a prospectively maintained database. Results One hundred and fifty patients (91 male, median age 69 years, median BMI 26) underwent laparoscopic TME over 9 years. Median follow up was 28.5 months (range 0–88). Sixteen (10.6%) patients underwent neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Six (4.0%) required open conversion and 13 (9.0%) had an anastomotic leakage. The proportion of Dukes stages were: A, 33.3%; B, 30.7%; C, 31.3%; D, 4.7%. Five (3.3%) patients had an R1 and one an R2 resection. Median length of postoperative stay was 6 days. Three (2.0%) patients died within 30 days. Four (2.7%) developed local recurrence and 14 (9.3%) developed distant metastases. Predicted 5‐year disease‐free and overall survival rates by Kaplan–Meier analysis were 85.8% and 78.7%, respectively. Conclusion Laparoscopic TME surgery can safely be offered to unselected patients with rectal cancer with excellent medium‐term results.     

Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

Robotic surgery has been used successfully in many branches of surgery; but there is little evidence in the literature on its use in rectal cancer (RC). We conducted this meta-analysis that included randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized controlled trials of robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) to evaluate whether the safety and efficacy of RTME in patients with RC are equivalent to those of LTME.

Materials and methods

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of RTME with LTME for RC were selected. Operative and recovery outcomes, early postoperative morbidity, and oncological parameters were evaluated.

Results

Eight studies were identified that included 1229 patients in total, 554 (45.08%) in the RTME and 675 (54.92%) in the LTME. Meta-analysis suggested that the conversion rate to open surgery in RTME was significantly lower than in LTME (P = 0.0004). There were no significant differences in operation time, estimated blood loss, recovery outcome, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, and the oncological accuracy of resection and local recurrence between the two groups. The positive rate of circumferential resection margins (P = 0.04) and the incidence of erectile dysfunction (P = 0.002) were lower in RTME compared with LTME.

Conclusions

RTME for RC is safe and feasible, and the short- and medium-term oncological and functional outcomes are equivalent or preferable to LTME. It may be an alternative treatment for RC. More multicenter randomized controlled trials investigating the long-term oncological and functional outcomes are required to determine the advantages of RTME over LTME in RC.