Complications Following Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer – Modified Intersphincteric Resections vs Non-Sphincter Saving Technique

Vlad Olimpiu Butiurca; Andrei Modiga; Ioan Teodor Bud; Paul Cristian Russu; Marian Botoncea; Calin Molnar; Simona Gurzu

doi:10.2478/amma-2020-0031

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Complications Following Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer – Modified Intersphincteric Resections vs Non-Sphincter Saving Technique

Acta Marisiensis - Seria Medica

Volume 66 (2020): Issue 4 (December 2020)

By: Vlad Olimpiu Butiurca, Andrei Modiga, Ioan Teodor Bud, Paul Cristian Russu, Marian Botoncea, Calin Molnar and Simona Gurzu

Open Access

|Dec 2020

Abstract

Introduction: In patients with low rectal cancer, a proper surgical technique is aimed to confer a better quality of life following surgery and a longer time of disease-free survival.

Aim: In this study, we presented the results obtained by a single surgical centre in the treatment of low rectal cancer, using two types of surgery: intersphincteric resections (ISR) and abdominoperineal resections (APR).

Material and methods: The paper was focused on the rate of complications after surgery for low rectal cancer, which was retrospectively evaluated in 132 consecutive patients who underwent surgery over a period of 5 years. The statistical comparison was done between two groups: group 1 - that underwent ISR (n=60) and group 2 – patients evaluated after APR (n=72).

Results: The quality of life, evaluated at the regular follow-up, did not show significant difference between the two groups. Clavien-Dindo grade I and above complications were registered in 9 patients (15%) from group 1 respectively 23 patients (38.33%) from the group 2.

Conclusion: ISR is a good option for surgical removal of a low rectal cancer, with a lower rate of complications, compared with APR technique.

References

1. Lirici MM, Hüscher CGS. Techniques and technology evolution of rectal cancer surgery: a history of more than a hundred years. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies. 2016;25:226–233.10.1080/13645706.2016.1198381
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. Heald RJ, Ryall RDH. RECURRENCE AND SURVIVAL AFTER TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION FOR RECTAL CANCER. The Lancet. 1986;327:1479–1482.10.1016/S0140-6736(86)91510-2
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. Schiessel R, Karner-Hanusch J, Herbst F, et al. Intersphincteric resection for low rectal tumours. Br J Surg. 1994;81:1376–1378.10.1002/bjs.1800810944
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. Schiessel R, Karner-Hanusch J, Herbst F, et al. Intersphincteric resection for low rectal tumours. Br J Surg. 1994;81:1376–1378.10.1002/bjs.1800810944
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. Schiessel R, Novi G, Holzer B, et al. Technique and long-term results of intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:1858–1865; discussion 1865-1867.10.1007/s10350-005-0134-5
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. Laurent C, Paumet T, Leblanc F, et al. Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs open surgery approach. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:35–41; discussion 42-43.10.1111/j.1463-1318.2010.02528.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. Chen H, Ma B, Gao P, et al. Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection versus an open approach for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2017;15:229.10.1186/s12957-017-1304-3
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Chi P, Huang S-H, Lin H-M, et al. Laparoscopic Transabdominal Approach Partial Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Surgical Feasibility and Intermediate-Term Outcome. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:944–951.10.1245/s10434-014-4085-8
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. MacFarlane JK, Ryall RDH, Heald RJ. Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. The Lancet. 1993;341:457–460.10.1016/0140-6736(93)90207-W
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. Heald RJ, Moran BJ, Ryall RD, et al. Rectal cancer: the Basingstoke experience of total mesorectal excision, 1978-1997. Arch Surg. 1998;133:894–899.10.1001/archsurg.133.8.8949711965
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
11. Butiurca V-O, Molnar C, Constantin C, et al. Long Term Results of Modified Intersphincteric Resections for Low Rectal Cancer: A Single Center Experience. Medicina. 2019;55:764.10.3390/medicina55120764
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
12. Corman ML. Classic articles in colonic and rectal surgery. A method of performing abdominoperineal excision for carcinoma of the rectum and of the terminal portion of the pelvic colon: by W. Ernest Miles, 1869-1947. Dis Colon Rectum. 1980;23:202–205.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
13. Rullier E, Denost Q, Vendrely V, et al. Low rectal cancer: classification and standardization of surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:560–567.10.1097/DCR.0b013e31827c4a8c
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
14. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, et al. Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43:9–16; discussion 16-17.10.1007/BF02237236
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
15. Molnar C. Molnar C and Butiurca VO. Muco-Submucosal Necrosis-Early Novel Complication following Intersphincteric Resections. Austin J Pathol Lab Med. 2017; 4(1): 1017. Austin J Pathol Lab Med [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 Feb 18];4. Available from: http://austinpublishinggroup.com/pathology/fulltext/pathology-v4-id1017.php.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
16. Westerduin E, Musters GD, van Geloven AAW, et al. Low Hartmann’s procedure or intersphincteric proctectomy for distal rectal cancer: a retrospective comparative cohort study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017;32:1583–1589.10.1007/s00384-017-2886-5
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
17. Khan NA, Quan H, Bugar JM, et al. Association of postoperative complications with hospital costs and length of stay in a tertiary care center. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:177–180.10.1007/s11606-006-0254-1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
18. Londono-Schimmer EE, Leong AP, Phillips RK. Life table analysis of stomal complications following colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994;37:916–920.10.1007/BF02052598
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
19. Laurent C, Leblanc F, Wütrich P, et al. Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Long-Term Oncologic Results. Annals of Surgery. 2009;250:54–61.10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181ad6511
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
20. van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2013;14:210–218.10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70016-0
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
21. Aziz O, Constantinides V, Tekkis PP, et al. Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:413–424.10.1245/ASO.2006.05.04516450220
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
22. Rubinkiewicz M, Zarzycki P, Czerwińska A, et al. A quest for sphincter-saving surgery in ultralow rectal tumours-a single-centre cohort study. World J Surg Oncol. 2018;16:218.10.1186/s12957-018-1513-4622308530404633
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
23. Yamada K, Saiki Y, Takano S, et al. Long-term results of intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer in Japan. Surg Today. 2019;49:275–285.10.1007/s00595-018-1754-430604217
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
24. Sprenger T, Beißbarth T, Sauer R, et al. Long-term prognostic impact of surgical complications in the German Rectal Cancer Trial CAO/ARO/AIO-94. Br J Surg. 2018;105:1510–1518.10.1002/bjs.1087729846017
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
25. Hawkins AT, Albutt K, Wise PE, et al. Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer in the Twenty-First Century: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22:1477–1487.10.1007/s11605-018-3750-929663303
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
26. Tooley JE, Sceats LA, Bohl DD, et al. Frequency and timing of short-term complications following abdominoperineal resection. J Surg Res. 2018;231:69–76.10.1016/j.jss.2018.05.00930278971
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
27. Christian CK, Kwaan MR, Betensky RA, et al. Risk factors for perineal wound complications following abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:43–48.10.1007/s10350-004-0855-x15690656
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
28. Bailey JG, Davis PJB, Levy AR, et al. The impact of adverse events on health care costs for older adults undergoing nonelective abdominal surgery. Can J Surg. 2016;59:172–179.10.1503/cjs.013915498286226999476
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
29. Goto S, Hasegawa S, Hata H, et al. Differences in surgical site infection between laparoscopic colon and rectal surgeries: sub-analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (Japan-Multinational Trial Organization PREV 07-01). Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31:1775–1784.10.1007/s00384-016-2643-127604812
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
30. Zimlichman E, Henderson D, Tamir O, et al. Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:2039–2046.10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.976323999949
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
31. Biondo S, Kreisler E, Fraccalvieri D, et al. Risk factors for surgical site infection after elective resection for rectal cancer. A multivariate analysis on 2131 patients. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:e95–e102.10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02798.x21883813
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
32. Konanz J, Herrle F, Weiss C, et al. Quality of life of patients after low anterior, intersphincteric, and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer--a matched-pair analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013;28:679–688.10.1007/s00384-013-1683-z23571868
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
33. Zlobec I, Minoo P, Karamitopoulou E, et al. Role of tumor size in the pre-operative management of rectal cancer patients. BMC Gastroenterol. 2010;10:61.10.1186/1471-230X-10-61290022120550703
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
34. Langman G, Patel A, Bowley DM. Size and distribution of lymph nodes in rectal cancer resection specimens. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58:406–414.10.1097/DCR.000000000000032125751797
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
35. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–213.10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae136012315273542
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amma-2020-0031 | Journal eISSN: 2668-7763 | Journal ISSN: 2668-7755

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 140 - 143

Submitted on: Oct 25, 2020

Accepted on: Nov 4, 2020

Published on: Dec 31, 2020

Published by: University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Targu Mures

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

Keywords:

intersphincteric resection,

rectal cancer,

abdominoperineal resection,

surgical site infection

Related subjects:

Medicine,

Clinical medicine,

Clinical medicine, other

© 2020 Vlad Olimpiu Butiurca, Andrei Modiga, Ioan Teodor Bud, Paul Cristian Russu, Marian Botoncea, Calin Molnar, Simona Gurzu, published by University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Targu Mures
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 66 (2020): Issue 4 (December 2020)