Background. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) has been the standard surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer for a century. In recent years, intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been increasingly used to avoid the permanent colostomy. Up to now, there is no relevant meta-analysis comparing the clinical efficacy of ISR and APR. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of these 2 procedures. Methods. A comprehensive search of online databases was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to obtain comparative studies of ISR and APR. Then the data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were extracted and analyzed. Results. A total of 12 studies covering 2438 patients were included. No significant differences were found between ISR and APR in gender, body mass index, distance from tumor to anal edge, operative time, and blood loss. In addition, hospital stay (weighted mean differences = −2.98 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −3.54 to −2.43; P < .00001) and postoperative morbidity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.99; P = .04) were significantly lower in ISR group compared with APR group. However, patients who underwent ISR showed lower pathological T-stage (T3T4%, OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.28 to 0.86; P = .01) and lymph node metastasis rate (OR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.59 to 1.01; P = .06) compared with those who underwent APR. Moreover, oncological outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. Conclusion. ISR may provide a safe alternative to APR, with shorter hospital stays, lower postoperative morbidity, and similar oncological outcomes. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.

Increasing evidence suggests that intestinal microbiota have critical function in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. This present study investigated the effects of Escherichia coli ( E. coli ) in mice with dextran sulfate sodium (DSS)-induced colitis. Furthermore, Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) and nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) gene expression was measured by reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction. In total, two experiments were performed. In the first experiment, four groups were established in BALB/c mice: i) Group A, control (no treatments); ii) group B, DSS-induced colitis; iii) group C, DSS-induced colitis bacteria depleted (BD) mice; and iv) group D, E. coli -treated DSS-induced colitis BD mice. In the second experiment, there were three groups: i) Group A1, control C57BL/6 mice; ii) group B1, E. coli -treated DSS-induced colitis BD C57BL/6 mice; and iii) E. coli -treated DSS-induced colitis BD TLR4 −/− mice. Clinical outcomes, colon and immune histopathology and tissue myeloperoxidase activity were assessed. Mice with DSS-induced colitis that were treated with E. coli exhibited enhanced recovery, with significantly improved clinical and histological scores compared with the DSS only group. The mRNA expression of TLR4 and NF-κB in the E. coli -treated group was also significantly higher. These effects were abolished in TLR4 −/− mice, suggesting that E. coli may have promoted recovery through the TLR4 pathway. The present study indicated that E. coli promoted recovery from DSS-induced colitis in mice, potentially through activation of the TLR4/NF-κB signaling pathway.

Background In recent years, intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been increasingly used to replace abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the surgical treatment of ultra-low rectal cancer. Aim This study was to compare the clinical efficacy of ISR and APR. Methods Between 2012 and 2018, 74 consecutive patients with ultra-low rectal cancer underwent ISR or APR in our medical center. A retrospective comparison of these 2 procedures was performed. Results A total of 43 patients underwent ISR and 31 underwent APR were included in the study. No significant differences were found between 2 groups in gender, age, BMI, and ASA score. Intersphincteric resection group showed shorter operative time ( P = .02) and less blood loss ( P = .001). Hospital stays, time to soft diet, and postoperative 30-day complications were not significantly different between the 2 groups. R0 resection achieved 100% in both the groups. As for the long-term outcomes, the survival and recurrence rate were similar between 2 groups. Moreover, the LARS and Wexner score showed that the postoperative anal function after ISR were satisfactory. Conclusion This study suggested that ISR was feasible and safe for selected patients with ultra-low rectal cancer, with clinically superior outcomes in select patients (small tumors/further from the anal verge) and similar oncological outcomes to APR, and the anal functional outcomes after ISR were acceptable.