Objective To observe clinical efficacy and explore clinical value of a modified procedure of double-stapling technique for mid-low rectal cancer.Methods Clinical data of patients undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection at the Department of General Surgery,the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from February 2011 to February 2015 was analyzed retrospectively.According to the different ways in doing double-stapling technique,we divided patients into modified group (51 cases) and conventional group (74 cases).Parameters were compared between the two groups as general considerations,oncologic outcomes.Data were analyzed by SPSS 17.0 software packet,using t and x2 inspection.Results The difference of the general data of two groups was not statistically significant (P ＞ 0.05).Operation time in the modified group was longer than that of the conventional group [(169 ± 23) vs.(150 ±42)min,t =-3.150,P ＜0.05],but it had shorter drainage tube indwelling days [(7.9 ±2.9)d vs.(10.8±11.6)d,t=1.999,P＜0.05] and length of hospital stay after surgery [(10.0±3.6)d vs.(13.3 ± 13.7) d,t =1.025,P ＜ 0.05].The incidence of anastomotic leakage (2.0％ vs.18.9％,x2 =4.402,P ＜ 0.05) and tenesmus(3.9％ vs.17.6％,x2 =4.110,P ＜ 0.05) in the modified group was less than that of the conventional group.The difference in those areas was not statistically significant (P ＞ 0.05),such as intraopretive blood loss,per-anal exhaust time,consumption of liquid diet time,anastomotic bleeding,intestinal obstruction,reoperation for neostomy and infections.Conclusions Compared with traditional laparoscopic anterior resection,End-Corner anastomosis has the benefits of less postoperative anastomotic leakage and fewer low anterior resection syndrome.

Background and purpose:Anastomotic leakage and low anterior resection syndrome(LARS) are both common complications in dual-anastomosis for patients with low rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to observe and explore the signiifcance and role of vertical cutting of the closed distal rectum in dual-anastomosis for patients with low rectal cancer.Methods:A total number of 120 patients with mid-low rectal cancer who admitted to and completed laparoscopic rectal cancer resection in the Department of General Surgery, the First Afifliated Hospital of Soochow University from Feb. 2010 to Jun. 2014 were pair-matched into Groups A and B based on their gender,age, tumor size, the distance of lower edge to the dentate line and tumor staging, etc. For the 55 patients in Group A (observation group), the rectum distal end was closed vertically instead of horizontally while disposing “the ifrst intestinal anastomosis”, intestine-intestine anastomosis was conducted in an “end-corner” approach when dealing with “the second intestinal anastomosis”, upper corner (“dog ear”) of the closed line in the distal end of the rectum was removed, the lower corner (“dog ear”) of the closed line in the distal end of the rectum was removed using vascular occlusion clamp method, and the T-shaped interchanges (“dangerous triangle”) of stapled sutures formed after anastomosis were strengthened with absorbable suture. For the 65 patients in Group B (control group), laparoscopic dual anastomosis was conducted using conventional method, and the two “dog-ears” and “dangerous triangles” were kept without any treatment. The clinical outcomes of the two groups of patients were analyzed retrospectively. Results:In group A, It was convenient to complete the operation when the “dog ears” and “dangerous triangle” on the vertical line after cutting the closed distal rectum vertically by “end-corner” anastomosis. The axis of intestine formed a certain angle making the closed distal rectum into “ampulla” sample without “dog ears”. the “dangerous triangle” were strengthened with absorbable suture. In group B, The distal and proximal intestine located on the same axis after intestine-intestine anastomosis leaving two “dog ears” and a “dangerous triangle”. The general clinical data of patients in the two groups were comparable and not signiifcantly different (P>0.05). The two groups of patients showed no signiifcant differences in blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative anastomotic bleeding, anal exhaust time, and length of hospital stay (P>0.05). However, the operation time as well as the numbers of anastomotic ifstula occurrence, defecation, tenesmus and post-operation re-ostomy differed significantly (P<0.05).Conclusion:Vertical cutting of the closed distal rectum with dual anastomosis made the “new” intestine closer to the physiological bending and morphology of the rectum, meanwhile, it simpliifed the approach of removing “dog ear” and strengthening “dangerous triangle”, ifnally it signiifcantly reduced the incidence of post-surgical complications.

OBJECTIVETo explore a new procedure of laparoscopic dual anastomosis for mid-low rectal cancer to reduce postoperative complications.

METHODSClinical data of 56 patients with mid-low rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer resection(modified double-stapling technique, MDST, modification group) in the Department of General Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from February 2010 to June 2014 were compared with the data of 64 patients with mid-low rectal cancer (conventional double-stapling technique, DST, convention group) in the same period based on gender, age, tumor size, the distance from lower edge to the dentate line and tumor staging, etc. Patients in the modification group received operation as follows: (1) the rectum distal end was closed vertically instead of horizontally. (2) the anastomosis was conducted in an "end-corner" approach. (3) upper corner of the closed line in the distal end of rectum was removed. (4) the lower corner of closed line in the distal end of rectum was removed using vascular occlusion clamp method. (5) two T-shaped interchanges ("dangerous triangle") of stapled sutures formed after anastomosis were strengthened with absorbable suture. Patients in the convention group received laparoscopic dual anastomosis using conventional method: two corners and "dangerous triangles" were kept without any treatment. The clinical outcomes of two groups were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTSThe intraoperational blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative anastomotic stoma bleeding, bowel function return and hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups (all P>0.05). As compared to the convention group, the modification group had longer operation time [(211 ± 91) min vs. (174 ± 57) min, P<0.05], lower incidence of postoperative anastomotic leakage [1.8%(1/56) vs. 12.5% (8/64), P=0.030], lower tenesmus rate [3.6% (2/56) vs. 14.1% (9/64), P<0.05], less postoperative stoma re-creation [0 vs. 9.4% (6/64), P<0.05].

CONCLUSIONModified laparoscopic dual anastomosis for mid-low rectal cancer can significantly reduce the incidence of post-surgical complications such as anastomotic leakage.

Anastomosis, Surgical ; Anastomotic Leak ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Neoplasm Staging ; Operative Time ; Postoperative Complications ; Rectal Neoplasms ; surgery ; Retrospective Studies

Objective To explore a new procedure of laparoscopic dual anastomosis for mid-low rectal cancer to reduce postoperative complications. Methods Clinical data of 56 patients with mid-low rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer resection (modified double-stapling technique, MDST, modification group) in the Department of General Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from February 2010 to June 2014 were compared with the data of 64 patients with mid-low rectal cancer (conventional double-stapling technique, DST, convention group) in the same period based on gender, age, tumor size, the distance from lower edge to the dentate line and tumor staging, etc. Patients in the modification group received operation as follows: (1) the rectum distal end was closed vertically instead of horizontally. (2) the anastomosis was conducted in an “end-corner”approach. (3) upper corner of the closed line in the distal end of rectum was removed. (4) the lower corner of closed line in the distal end of rectum was removed using vascular occlusion clamp method. (5) two T-shaped interchanges (“dangerous triangle”) of stapled sutures formed after anastomosis were strengthened with absorbable suture. Patients in the convention group received laparoscopic dual anastomosis using conventional method: two corners and “dangerous triangles” were kept without any treatment. The clinical outcomes of two groups were analyzed retrospectively. Results The intraoperational blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative anastomotic stoma bleeding, bowel function return and hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups (all P>0.05). As compared to the convention group, the modification group had longer operation time [(211± 91) min vs. (174±57) min, P<0.05], lower incidence of postoperative anastomotic leakage [1.8%(1/56) vs. 12.5%(8/64), P=0.030], lower tenesmus rate [3.6%(2/56) vs. 14.1%(9/64), P<0.05], less postoperative stoma re-creation [0 vs. 9.4%(6/64), P<0.05]. Conclusion Modified laparoscopic dual anastomosis for mid-low rectal cancer can significantly reduce the incidence of post-surgical complications such as anastomotic leakage.

Objective To explore a new procedure of laparoscopic dual anastomosis for mid-low rectal cancer to reduce postoperative complications. Methods Clinical data of 56 patients with mid-low rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer resection (modified double-stapling technique, MDST, modification group) in the Department of General Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from February 2010 to June 2014 were compared with the data of 64 patients with mid-low rectal cancer (conventional double-stapling technique, DST, convention group) in the same period based on gender, age, tumor size, the distance from lower edge to the dentate line and tumor staging, etc. Patients in the modification group received operation as follows: (1) the rectum distal end was closed vertically instead of horizontally. (2) the anastomosis was conducted in an “end-corner”approach. (3) upper corner of the closed line in the distal end of rectum was removed. (4) the lower corner of closed line in the distal end of rectum was removed using vascular occlusion clamp method. (5) two T-shaped interchanges (“dangerous triangle”) of stapled sutures formed after anastomosis were strengthened with absorbable suture. Patients in the convention group received laparoscopic dual anastomosis using conventional method: two corners and “dangerous triangles” were kept without any treatment. The clinical outcomes of two groups were analyzed retrospectively. Results The intraoperational blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative anastomotic stoma bleeding, bowel function return and hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups (all P>0.05). As compared to the convention group, the modification group had longer operation time [(211± 91) min vs. (174±57) min, P<0.05], lower incidence of postoperative anastomotic leakage [1.8%(1/56) vs. 12.5%(8/64), P=0.030], lower tenesmus rate [3.6%(2/56) vs. 14.1%(9/64), P<0.05], less postoperative stoma re-creation [0 vs. 9.4%(6/64), P<0.05]. Conclusion Modified laparoscopic dual anastomosis for mid-low rectal cancer can significantly reduce the incidence of post-surgical complications such as anastomotic leakage.