A Comparison of the Oncologic Results after Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection and Ultra-low Anterior Resection with Hand-sewn Coloanal Anastomosis for Treating Distal Rectal Cancer.
- Author:
Jae Beom SEO
1
;
Gyu Seog CHOI
;
Kyoung Hoon LIM
;
Min Jung JO
;
You Seok JANG
;
Jun Seok PARK
;
Soo Han JUN
Author Information
1. Department of Surgery, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea. kyuschoi@knu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Rectal cancer;
Abdominoperineal resection;
Coloanal anastomosis;
Oncologic outcomes;
Laparoscopy
- MeSH:
Anal Canal;
Congenital Abnormalities;
Disease-Free Survival;
Ear;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Laparoscopy;
Postoperative Complications;
Rectal Neoplasms;
Recurrence;
Retrospective Studies;
Surgical Procedures, Operative;
Survival Rate
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Endoscopic & Laparoscopic Surgeons
2009;12(2):96-101
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Abdominoperineal resection (APR) has been regarded as the standard procedure for the treatment of distal rectal cancer since Miles first described it in 1908. But because of the better understanding of the patterns of spreading tumor, the pelvic physiology, the development of stapling devices and introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME), the rate of sphincter preserving surgery has been increasing. The aim of this study is to compare the oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic APR and ultra-low anterior resection with handsewn coloanal anastomosis (CAA) for treating distal rectal cancer. METHODS: Between January 2003 and October 2007, 95 patients who were followed up for more than 2 years after curative laparoscopic APR or CAA for distal rectal cancer were included in this study. The clinical characteristics, pathologic findings, postoperative complications and oncologic results were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: There were 31 APRs and 64 CAAs. The median follow-up period was 43 (5~79) months. The mean distance between the lower margin of the tumor and the anal verge was 2.1+/-1.2 cm in APR and 3.7+/-1.4 cm in CAA (p<0.001). There were 2 (6.5%) local recurrences and 8 (25.8%) systemic recurrences after APR and 3 (4.7%) local recurrences and 10 (15.6%) systemic recurrences after CAA, respectively (p=0.641, p=0.161). The 3-year disease-specific survival rate was 86.7% in APR and 93.5% in CAA (p=0.407). The 3-year disease free survival rate was 73.7% in APR and 80.1% in CAA (p=0.161) but there were no significant differences in the oncologic results according to the stages between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The operative procedures are changing toward sphincter preservation. Laparoscopic ultra-low anterior resection and hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis is oncologically as safe as laparoscopic APR for treating lower rectal cancer. However, APR should be considered the standard treatment for distal rectal cancer when it invades the anal sphincter or the levator ani.
