Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: laparoscopic <i>vs</i> open surgery approach

Laurent, Alexis; Paumet, Thomas; Leblanc, F.; Denost, Quentin; Rullier, Éric

doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2010.02528.x

Cited by 68 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of the included studies defined conversion as any case that could not be completed with the intended minimally invasive surgical approach and required open or nonminimally invasive techniques for completion, [34][35][36]39,41,[43][44][45] and conversion patients remained in the LS group. Rates of conversion varied from 0 % in the study by Jun Seok 37 to 21.8 % in the study by Laurent, 43 while they were not reported in three studies.…”

Section: Study Characteristics and Qualitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Thirteen articles were published in English for the final metaanalysis. [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] Among the involved articles, two of them were conducted from the same trial population, but offered difference indexes for analysis. Martijn 38 and Bonjer 46 included some patients with upper rectal cancer (DAV>10 cm), but we only analysed the data regarding the patients with mid-low rectal cancer (DAV≤10 cm).…”

Section: Studies Selectedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Mid-Low Rectal Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

Jiang

Dai

et al. 2015

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristics and Qualitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studies Selectedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Mid-Low Rectal Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

Jiang

Dai

et al. 2015

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, we believe in the potential of laparoscopic surgery for the LAP-ISR procedure. However, the evidence about LAP-ISR is still limited [4,5,18]. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of LAP-ISR in terms of mortality, morbidity, oncological adequacy, and functional results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Laurent et al [5] reported the complications of LAP-ISR (n = 110) in a retrospective comparative study with their open ISR. In their report, overall morbidity was 40.9%, including 25.5% with septic pelvic complications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evaluation of LAP-ISR to determine whether it is an appropriate procedure should be based on achieving acceptable results in terms of morbidity, oncological safety, and functional results. However, the evidence for LAP-ISR is still limited [4,5]. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of LAP-ISR in terms of early and late complications, oncological outcomes, and functional results.…”

Section: Background/aimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Feasibility of Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Patients with cT1-T2 Low Rectal Cancer

Shiomi

Kinugasa²,

Yamaguchi³

et al. 2013

Dig Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (LAP-ISR) for rectal cancer in terms of morbidity, oncological outcomes, and functional results. Methods: Thirty-seven patients with primary low rectal cancer cT1-T2 underwent LAP-ISR. Surgical outcomes, pathological results, postoperative complications, oncological outcomes, and functional results were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Three patients (8.1%) had carcinoma in situ, 22 (59.5%) had pT1 tumor, and 11 (29.7%) had pT2 tumor. Eleven patients (29.7%) were diagnosed as being node positive, while 26 (70.3%) had node-negative disease. The median operative time was 315 min (range: 195-502). The median blood loss was 37 ml (range: 0-745). One case was converted to open surgery. Pathological complete resection was achieved in all cases. There was no surgical mortality. Postoperative complications of grade III-IV on the Clavien-Dindo classification were observed in 16.2% of the patients. The median follow-up period was 2.8 years (range: 187-2,241 days), and 3-year disease-free survival was 93.1%. No patient developed local recurrence. The functional result was objectively good. Conclusion: LAP-ISR can be recommended as a feasible, ultimate sphincter-preserving procedure with acceptable functional and intermediate-term oncological outcomes in patients with cT1-T2 very low rectal cancer.

show abstract

Intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: A review of the updated literature

Shirouzu

Murakami

Akagi

2017

Annals of Gastroent Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) has rapidly increased worldwide including laparoscopic surgery. However, there are some concerns for the definition of ISR, surgical technique, oncological outcome, anal function, and quality of life (QoL). The aim of the present study is to evaluate those issues. A review of this surgical technique was carried out by searching English language literature of the PubMed online database and appropriate articles were identified. With regard to open‐ISR, the morbidity rate ranged from 7.5% to 38.3%, with lower mortality rates. Local recurrence rates varied widely from 0% to 22.7%, with a mean follow‐up duration of 40–94 months. Disease‐free and overall 5‐year survival rates were 68–86% and 76–97%, respectively. Those outcomes were equivalent to laparoscopic‐ISR. Surgical and oncological outcomes of ISR were generally acceptable. However, accurate evaluation of anal function and QoL was difficult because of a lack of standard assessment of various patient‐related factors. The surgical and oncological outcomes after ISR seem to be acceptable. The ISR technique seems to be valid as an alternative to abdominoperineal resection in selected patients with a very low rectal cancer. However, both necessity for ISR and expectations of QoL impairment as a result of functional disorder should be fully discussed with patients before surgery.

show abstract

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs open surgery approach

Abstract: Intersphincteric resection did not alter long-term tumour control of low rectal cancer. The safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic approach for intersphincteric resection are suggested by a similar short- and long-term outcome as obtained by open surgery.

Cited by 68 publications

References 31 publications

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Mid-Low Rectal Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Mid-Low Rectal Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

Feasibility of Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Patients with cT1-T2 Low Rectal Cancer

Intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: A review of the updated literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About