Objective: To methodically assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted total rectal mesenteric resection (RTME), laparoscopic-assisted total rectal mesenteric resection (laTME), and transanal total rectal mesenteric resection (taTME). Methods: A computer search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Ovid databases to identify English-language reports published between January 2017 and January 2022 that compared the clinical efficacy of the three surgical procedures of RTME, laTME, and taTME. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the NOS and JADAD scales for retrospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. Direct meta-analysis and reticulated meta-analysis were performed using Review Manager software and R software, respectively. Results: Twenty-nine publications comprising 8,339 patients with rectal cancer were ultimately included. The direct meta-analysis indicated that the length of hospital stay was longer after RTME than after taTME, whereas according to the reticulated meta-analysis the length of hospital stay was shorter after taTME than after laTME (MD=-0.86, 95%CI: -1.70 to -0.096, P=0.036). Moreover, the incidence of anastomotic leak was lower after taTME than after RTME (OR=0.60, 95%CI: 0.39 to 0.91, P=0.018). The incidence of intestinal obstruction was also lower after taTME than after RTME (OR=0.55, 95%CI: 0.31 to 0.94, P=0.037). All of these differences were statistically significant (all P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the three surgical procedures regarding the number of lymph nodes cleared, length of the inferior rectal margin, or rate of positive circumferential margins (all P>0.05). An inconsistency test using nodal analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between the results of direct and indirect comparisons of the six outcome indicators (all P>0.05). Furthermore, we detected no significant overall inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence. Conclusion: taTME has advantages over RTME and laTME, in terms of radical and surgical short-term outcomes in patients with rectal cancer.
Humans ; Robotics ; Robotic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects* ; Network Meta-Analysis ; Retrospective Studies ; Postoperative Complications/etiology* ; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery/methods* ; Rectum/surgery* ; Rectal Neoplasms/pathology* ; Laparoscopy/methods* ; Treatment Outcome

Objective: To compare the long-term outcomes of intersphincteric (trans-internal and external) sphincter resection (ISR) and abdominoperineal proctocolectomy (APR) for low-grade rectal cancer. Methods: We used a meta-analytic approach to compare these procedures . Published reports comparing ISR and APR for low rectal cancer in Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane, China Knowledge Network (CNKI), China Biomedical Literature Database, and Vipers databases between January 2005 and January 2023 were searched and those meeting the eligibility criteria were selected for extraction of data for analysis. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) all reports comparing ISR and APR for low rectal cancer before January 2023; and (2) prospective randomized controlled studies or well-designed cohort studies. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) full text not available; (2) duplicate publications, missing primary outcome indicators, and unknown data; and (3) invalid statistical analysis. Results: Sixteen studies with 2498 patients were included in this study. Compared with the APR group, patients in the ISR group were relatively younger (weighted mean difference [WMD]=-1.82, 95%CI=-2.94 to -0.70, P=0.01), had tumors farther from the anal verge (WMD=0.43, 95%CI=0.18 to 0.67, P<0.01), and lower pathological T-stage (T3-4 stage: OR=0.54, 95%CI=0.36 to 0.81, P<0.01). In contrast, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in gender (P=0.78), body mass index (P=0.77), or pathological N stage (P=0.09). Compared with the APR group, patients in the ISR group had a lower rate of postoperative complications (OR=0.77, 95%CI=0.60 to 0.99, P=0.04), shorter hospital stay (WMD=-4.30, 95%CI=-7.07 to -1.53, P<0.01), higher 5-year overall survival (HR=0.54, 95%CI=0.33 to 0.88, P=0.01), and higher 5-year disease-free survival (HR=0.65, 95%CI=0.47 to 0.90, P<0.01). Five-year locoregional failure (HR=0.66, 95%CI=0.40 to 1.10, P=0.11) and time to surgery (WMD=-9.71, 95%CI=-41.89 to 22.47, P=0.55) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusion: ISR is a safe and effective alternative to APR for early-stage low-grade rectal cancer.
Humans ; Prospective Studies ; Rectal Neoplasms/pathology* ; Rectum/surgery* ; Proctectomy ; Anal Canal/pathology* ; Treatment Outcome

Objective: To compare the short-term and long-term outcomes between transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (laTME) for mid-to-low rectal cancer and to evaluate the learning curve of taTME. Methods: This study was a retrospective cohort study. Firstly, consecutive patients undergoing total mesorectal excision who were registered in the prospective established database of Division of Colorectal Diseases, Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital during July 2014 to June 2020 were recruited. The enrolled patients were divided into taTME and laTME group. The demographic data, clinical characteristics, neoadjuvant treatment, intraoperative and postoperative complications, pathological results and follow-up data were extracted from the database. The primary endpoint was the incidence of anastomotic leakage and the secondary endpoints included the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and the 3-year local recurrence rate. Independent t-test for comparison between groups of normally distributed measures; skewed measures were expressed as M (range). Categorical variables were expressed as examples (%) and the χ(2) or Fisher exact probability was used for comparison between groups. When comparing the incidence of anastomotic leakage, 5 variables including sex, BMI, clinical stage evaluated by MRI, distance from tumor to anal margin evaluated by MRI, and whether receiving neoadjuvant treatment were balanced by propensity score matching (PSM) to adjust confounders. Kaplan-Meier curve and Log-rank test were used to compare the DFS of two groups. Cox proportional hazard model was used to analyze and determine the independent risk factors affecting the DFS of patients with mid-low rectal cancer. Secondly, the data of consecutive patients undergoing taTME performed by the same surgical team (the trananal procedures were performed by the same main surgeon) from February 2017 to March 2021 were separately extracted and analyzed. The multidimensional cumulative sum (CUSUM) control chart was used to draw the learning curve of taTME. The outcomes of 'mature' taTME cases through learning curve were compared with laTME cases and the independent risk factors of DFS of 'mature' cases were also analyzed. Results: Two hundred and forty-three patients were eventually enrolled, including 182 undergoing laTME and 61 undergoing taTME. After PSM, both fifty-two patients were in laTME group and taTME group respectively, and patients of these two groups had comparable characteristics in sex, age, BMI, clinical tumor stage, distance from tumor to anal margin by MRI, mesorectal fasciae (MRF) and extramural vascular invasion (EMVI) by MRI and proportion of receiving neoadjuvant treatment. After PSM, as compared to laTME group, taTME group showed significantly longer operation time [(198.4±58.3) min vs. (147.9±47.3) min, t=-4.321, P<0.001], higher ratio of blood loss >100 ml during surgery [17.3% (9/52) vs. 0, P=0.003], higher incidence of anastomotic leakage [26.9% (14/52) vs. 3.8% (2/52), χ(2)=10.636, P=0.001] and higher morbidity of overall postoperative complications [55.8%(29/52) vs. 19.2% (10/52), χ(2)=14.810, P<0.001]. Total harvested lymph nodes and circumferential resection margin involvement were comparable between two groups (both P>0.05). The median follow-up for the whole group was 24 (1 to 72) months, with 4 cases lost, giving a follow-up rate of 98.4% (239/243). The laTME group had significantly better 3-year DFS than taTME group (83.9% vs. 73.0%, P=0.019), while the 3-year local recurrence rate was similar in two groups (1.7% vs. 3.6%, P=0.420). Multivariate analysis showed that and taTME surgery (HR=3.202, 95%CI: 1.592-6.441, P=0.001) the postoperative pathological staging of UICC stage II (HR=13.862, 95%CI:1.810-106.150, P=0.011), stage III (HR=8.705, 95%CI: 1.104-68.670, P=0.040) were independent risk factors for 3-year DFS. Analysis of taTME learning curve revealed that surgeons would cross over the learning stage after performing 28 cases. To compare the two groups excluding the cases within the learning stage, there was no significant difference between two groups after PSM no matter in the incidence of anastomotic leakage [taTME: 6.7%(1/15); laTME: 5.3% (2/38), P=1.000] or overall complications [taTME: 33.3%(5/15), laTME: 26.3%(10/38), P=0.737]. The taTME was still an independent risk factor of 3-year DFS only analyzing patients crossing over the learning stage (HR=5.351, 95%CI:1.666-17.192, P=0.005), and whether crossing over the learning stage was not the independent risk factor of 3-year DFS for mid-low rectal cancer patients undergoing taTME (HR=0.954, 95%CI:0.227-4.017, P=0.949). Conclusions: Compared with conventional laTME, taTME may increase the risk of anastomotic leakage and compromise the oncological outcomes. Performing taTME within the learning stage may significantly increase the risk of postoperative anastomotic leakage.
Anastomotic Leak/etiology* ; Humans ; Laparoscopy/methods* ; Postoperative Complications/epidemiology* ; Prognosis ; Prospective Studies ; Rectal Neoplasms/pathology* ; Rectum/surgery* ; Retrospective Studies ; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery/methods* ; Treatment Outcome

Tumor spreading through the lymphatic drainage is an important metastatic pathway for rectum and sigmoid colon carcinoma. Regional lymph node dissection, as an important part of radical resection of colorectal cancer, is the main way for patients with colorectal cancer to achieve radical resection and acquire tumor-free survival. The regional lymph nodes of sigmoid cancer include paracolic lymph nodes, intermediate lymph nodes, and central lymph nodes locating at the root of blood vessel, and radical surgery should include lymph node dissection at the above three stations. The lymphatic pathways of metastasis for rectal cancer include longitudinal metastasis within the mesorectum and lateral metastasis beyond the mesorectum. The standard surgical method of rectal cancer is total mesorectal excision (TME) at present, and the resection range includes the metastatic lymph nodes within the mesorectum through the longitudinal pathway. However, there are many different opinions about lateral lymph node dissection(LLND) aiming at the metastatic lymph nodes locating at the lateral space of rectum. The range of lymph node dissection for rectum and sigmoid cancer is a vital factor that determines the prognosis of patients. Insufficient range of dissection can lead to residual metastatic lymph nodes and have serious impacts on the prognosis of patients. Excessive range of dissection can result in greater surgical trauma, prolonged operation time, more blood loss, and higher rate of complication without oncological benefits. Individualizating the appropriate resection range of rectum and sigmoid colon cancer on the basis of standardization and according to the clinical stage and invasion range of tumor demonstrates great significance of ensuring the radical operation, reducing trauma, promoting rehabilitation, protecting the function and improving the prognosis.
Humans ; Lymph Node Excision/methods* ; Lymph Nodes/pathology* ; Rectal Neoplasms/pathology* ; Rectum/pathology* ; Reference Standards ; Sigmoid Neoplasms/surgery*

BackgroundThe introduction of individualized abdominoperineal excision (APE) may minimize operative trauma and reduce the rate of complications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of individualized APE for low rectal cancer.

MethodsFifty-six patients who underwent individualized APE from June 2011 to June 2015 were evaluated retrospectively in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University. The main outcome measures were circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, intraoperative perforation, postoperative complications, and local recurrence. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 16.0.

ResultsFifty (89%) patients received preoperative chemoradiotherapy: 51 (91%) patients were treated with the sacrococcyx preserved; 27 (48%) patients with the levator ani muscle partially preserved bilaterally; 20 (36%) patients with the levator ani muscle partially preserved unilaterally and the muscle on the opposite side totally preserved; 7 (13%) patients with intact levator ani muscle and part of the ischioanal fat bilaterally dissected; and 2 (4%) patients with part of the ischioanal fat and intact lavator ani muscle dissected unilaterally and the muscle on the opposite side partially preserved. The most common complications included sexual dysfunction (12%), perineal wound complications (13%), urinary retention (7%), and chronic perineal pain (5%). A positive CRM was demonstrated in 3 (5%) patients, and intraoperative perforations occurred in 2 (4%) patients. On multiple logistic regression analysis, longer operative time (P = 0.032) and more intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.006) were significantly associated with perineal procedure-related complications. The local recurrence was 4% at a median follow-up of 53 months (range: 30-74 months).

ConclusionWith preoperative chemoradiotherapy, individualized APE may be a relatively safe and feasible approach for low rectal cancer with acceptable oncological outcomes.

Aged ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; pathology ; surgery ; Operative Time ; Perineum ; surgery ; Postoperative Complications ; Rectal Neoplasms ; pathology ; surgery ; Rectum ; surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome

OBJECTIVETo investigate the risk factors of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) after anal sphincter preserving surgery (SPS) for rectal cancer patients.

METHODSClinicopathological and follow-up data of rectal cancer patients who underwent SPS from January 2010 to June 2014 in Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Peking University People's Hospital, were retrospectively analyzed. Patients receiving permanent colostomy and local resection were excluded. Meanwhile, during October 2014 and March 2015, the enrolled patients were asked to fill out a specially designed questionnaire for LARS through face-to-face interview or telephone inquiry, according to the chronological order of operation. Based on the score of questionnaire, patients were divided into three groups: 0-20 points: non LARS; 21-29: minor LARS; 30-42: major LARS. The demographic and clinicopathologic features were compared among groups and the risk factors of major LARS were tested by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTSA total of 100 patients (61 males, 39 females) completed the bowel function survey, with an average age of 66.2(41-86) years, 33 patients <60 years versus 67 patients ≥60 years. No significant difference was observed in age distribution (P=0.204). Interval from operation to first follow-up was more than 1 year in 70 patients, and the median follow-up was 23 months. Thirty-seven patients were non LARS, 18 were minor LARS and 45 were major LARS. No significant differences in clinicopathological data (all P>0.05) were observed among three groups except radiotherapy history (P=0.025), tumor location(P=0.000) and distance from anastomotic site to anal verge(P=0.008). After comparison of non LARS group combined with minor LARS group versus major LARS, re-analysis of risk factors showed that radiotherapy history (RR=5.608, 95%CI:1.457 to 21.584, P=0.006), distance from tumor lower margin to anal verge (RR=0.125, 95%CI:0.042 to 0.372, P=0.000), distance from anastomotic site to anal verge (RR=0.255, 95%CI:0.098 to 0.665, P=0.004) and preventive ileostomy history(RR=3.643, 95%CI:1.058 to 12.548, P=0.032) were associated with major LARS. One potential risk factor detected in combined analysis was female (RR=2.138, 95%CI: 0.944 to 4.844, P=0.078). Multivariate analysis revealed that female (RR=2.654, 95%CI: 1.005 to 7.014, P=0.049), radiotherapy history (RR=10.422, 95%CI:2.394 to 45.368, P=0.002) and distance from tumor lower margin to anal verge ≤7 cm (RR=8.935, 95%CI:2.827 to 28.243, P=0.000) were independent risk factors of major LARS.

CONCLUSIONSLARS is a significant problem in most rectal cancer patients after SPS. The risk of major LARS increases on condition of radiotherapy, low tumor position and female. When dealing with these patients, preventive measures should be taken into consideration during SPS.

Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Anal Canal ; pathology ; surgery ; Anastomosis, Surgical ; adverse effects ; Colon ; surgery ; Defecation ; physiology ; Factor Analysis, Statistical ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Long Term Adverse Effects ; epidemiology ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Radiotherapy ; adverse effects ; Rectal Neoplasms ; complications ; pathology ; surgery ; Rectum ; physiopathology ; surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Assessment ; methods ; Risk Factors ; Sex Factors ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Syndrome

PURPOSE: Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is a minimally invasive surgical technique with the combined benefits of laparoscopic surgery while allowing the use of the surgeon's hand for better tactile control. Obesity has been associated with higher conversion rates with multiport laparoscopic surgery, but not with HALS. This study aimed to examine the versatility of HALS in various clinical contexts. METHODS: All HALSs performed at 2 major tertiary centers in Sydney were prospectively collected for retrospective analysis. Variables including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), previous surgeries, pathologies including size and T-stage, and the number of conversions to a midline laparotomy were examined. RESULTS: A total of 121 HALS colorectal resections were analyzed. The median age of the patients was 62 years, with 63.6% being women. Seven patients required conversion to a midline laparotomy. Of the 121 patients, 50.2% were overweight or obese, and 52.9% had undergone previous abdominal/pelvic operations. However, neither obesity nor abdominal adhesions from previous operations were an indication for conversion to an open laparotomy in any of the 7 converted patients. The presence of intra-abdominal adhesions did not impact the operative time. HALS allowed access to the entire colon and rectum and allowed resection of the bladder, uterus, and ureter, when these organs were involved. CONCLUSION: HALS is a versatile, minimally invasive technique, which is independent of the patient's BMI, for performing a colorectal resection.
Body Mass Index ; Colon ; Colorectal Surgery ; Female ; Hand ; Hand-Assisted Laparoscopy* ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Laparotomy ; Obesity ; Operative Time ; Overweight ; Pathology ; Prospective Studies ; Rectum ; Retrospective Studies ; Surgeons* ; Ureter ; Urinary Bladder ; Uterus

OBJECTIVETo investigate the intramural lateral spread distance in low rectal cancer in order to provide basis for safety lateral resection margin of pull-through conformal resection (PTCR).

METHODSThe patients with low rectal cancer who received low anterior resection or abdominal-perineal resection in Changhai Hospital from December 2015 to March 2016 were enrolled and Surgical specimens were collected. After the specimens were fixed in 10% formaldehyde for 24 hours, a piece of tissue that was 1.5 cm in length and 0.5 cm in width from the edge of tumor was cut. The tissue was obtained in the direction of 3, 5, 7 and 9 o'clock clockwise. The distance of intramural lateral spread was measured in the specimens and the risk factors were analyzed.

RESULTSA total of 83 specimens were collected and the overall proportion of intramural lateral spread was 71.1%(59/83). The rate of lateral spread from 3 to 9 o'clock was 34.9%(29/83), 26.5%(22/83), 32.5%(27/83) and 37.3%(31/83) respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant(χ=2.444 9, P=0.485 3). The median distance of lateral spread in each direction was all 0 mm and the quartile range was 1 mm, 0.5 mm, 0.55 mm and 1 mm respectively. The 5th percentile (P5) of each direction was all 0 mm and the 95th percentile(P95) of each direction was 2.5 mm, 1.6 mm, 2.6 mm, 2.5 mm, respectively and the difference was not statistically significant either(χ=5.331 0, P=0.148 9). The rate of lateral spread of T1, T2, T3 and T4 was 0/4, 58.3%(14/24), 83.0%(44/53) and 1/2 respectively, and there was significant difference(P=0.005 0). The multivariate analysis indicated that T stage (P=0.002 2, OR=3.741, 95% CI: 1.606-8.716) was the risk factor of intramural lateral spread.

CONCLUSIONSThe intramural lateral spread does exist in low rectal cancer and T stage is the risk factor of lateral spread. The lateral resection margin should be 5 mm from the tumor edge at least when PTCR is performed.

Digestive System Surgical Procedures ; methods ; Humans ; Margins of Excision ; Multivariate Analysis ; Neoplasm Invasiveness ; pathology ; Neoplasm Staging ; adverse effects ; Rectal Neoplasms ; pathology ; surgery ; Rectum ; surgery ; Risk Factors

OBJECTIVETo explore the risk factors and clinical features of delayed anastomotic fistula (DAF) following sphincter-preserving operation for rectal cancer.

METHODSClinical data of 1 594 patients with rectal cancer undergoing sphincter-preserving operation in our department from January 2008 to May 2015 based on the prospective database of Dpartment of Colorectal Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Sixty patients(3.8%) developed anastomotic fistula. Forty-one patients (2.6%) developed early anastomotic fistula (EAF) within 30 days after surgery while 19(1.2%) were DAF that occurred beyond 30 days. Univariate analyses were performed to compare the clinical features between EAF and DAF group.

RESULTSDAF was diagnosed at a median time of 194(30-327) days after anastomosis. As compared to EAF group, DAF group had lower tumor site [(6.1±2.3) cm vs. (7.8±2.8) cm, P=0.023], lower anastomosis site [(3.6±1.8) cm vs. (4.8±1.6) cm, P=0.008], higher ratio of patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (84.2% vs. 34.1%, P=0.000), and receiving preventive stoma (73.7% vs. 14.6%, P=0.000). According to ISREC grading system for anastomotic fistula, DAF patients were grade A and B, while EAF cases were grade B and C(P=0.000). During the first hospital stay for anastomosis, DAF group did not have abdominal pain, general malaise, drainage abnormalities, peritonitis but 8 cases(42.1%) had fever more than 38centi-degree. In EAF group, 29 patients(70.7%) had abdominal pain and general malaise, and 29(70.7%) had drainage abnormalities. General or circumscribed peritonitis were developed in 25(61.0%) EAF patients, and fever occurred in 39(95.1%) EAF cases. There were 13(68.4%) cases with sinus or fistula formation and 9(47.4%) with rectovaginal fistula in DAF group, in contrast to 5 (12.2%) and 5 (12.2%) in EAF group respectively. In DAF group, 5 (26.3%) patients received follow-up due to stoma (no closure), 5 (26.3%) received bedside surgical drainage, while 9(47.4%) patients underwent operation, including diverting stoma in 3 patients, Hartmann procedure in 1 case, intersphincteric resection, coloanal anastomosis plus ileostomy in 1case because of pelvic fibrosis and stenosis of neorectum after radiotherapy, mucosal advancement flap repair with a cellular matrix interposition in 3 rectovaginal fistula cases, incision of sinus via the anus in 1 case. During a median follow-up of 28 months, 14(73.7%) DAF patients were cured.

CONCLUSIONSIt is advisable to be cautious that patients with lower site of tumor and anastomosis, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and preventive stoma are at risk of DAF. DAF is clinically silent and most patients can be cured by effective surgical treatment.

Anal Canal ; Anastomosis, Surgical ; Anastomotic Leak ; diagnosis ; pathology ; Colostomy ; Digestive System Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; Female ; Humans ; Ileostomy ; Length of Stay ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; Organ Sparing Treatments ; Postoperative Complications ; diagnosis ; Rectal Neoplasms ; surgery ; Rectovaginal Fistula ; Rectum ; surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Surgical Flaps ; Surgical Stomas ; Treatment Outcome

Adult ; Colitis ; diagnosis ; surgery ; Cysts ; diagnosis ; surgery ; Female ; Humans ; Rectum ; pathology ; surgery