Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Intersphincteric resection and hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer: Short-term outcomes in the Indian setting

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Gastroenterology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The rectum remains a predominant subsite of colorectal cancer in the Indian population. Unique to the Indian setting are significant social repercussions associated with a permanent stoma. On account of this, many patients who are advised abdominal perineal excision of the rectum (APER) default treatment. Accurate demonstration of the intersphincteric plane with magnetic resonance imaging has made intersphincteric resection (ISR) a viable option. This study is aimed at determining the feasibility and oncological adequacy of ISR in the Indian scenario.

Material and Methods

All patients with low rectal cancer who underwent an ISR at the Tata Memorial Centre, from July 2013 to December 2013 were included. Patients with invasion of the external sphincter and suboptimal preoperative sphincter function were excluded. Following standard preoperative staging, patients with a threatened circumferential resection margin (CRM) and/or mesorectal nodes were given preoperative chemoradiotherapy. The oncological adequacy of the procedure was evaluated in terms of margin positivity (distal and CRMs) and lymph node yield. Short-term perioperative outcomes included 30-day mortality, postoperative morbidity, anastomotic leaks, and length of hospital stay.

Results

Thirty-three patients with low rectal cancer and a median age of 38 years underwent ISR during the defined study period. Twenty-three patients (70 %) underwent open surgery whereas ten patients received a laparoscopic resection. The median blood loss and hospital stay was 300 mL and 7 days, respectively. Two patients had an involved CRM, but all distal margins were free of tumor. The quality of total mesorectal excision was satisfactory in all patients with a median lymph node yield of 9 nodes.

Conclusions

Intersphincteric resection is feasible and oncologically safe in selected patients with low rectal cancer. Long-term functional and oncological outcomes are essential before it can be considered a viable alternative to APER.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jayne DG, Thorpe HC, Copeland J, Quirke P, Brown JM, Guillou PJ. Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2010;97:1638–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Barreto SG, Chaubal GN, Talole S, et al. Rectal cancer in young Indians—are these cancers different compared to their older counterparts? Indian J Gastroenterol. 2014;33:146–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mohandas KM. Colorectal cancer in India: controversies, enigmas and primary prevention. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2011;30:3–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Swaminathan R, Selvakumaran R, Esmy PO, et al. Cancer pattern and survival in a rural district in South India. Cancer Epidemiol. 2009;33:325–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Laurent C, Paumet T, Leblanc F, Denost Q, Rullier E. Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs open surgery approach. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:35–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pechlivanides G, Gouvas N, Tsiaoussis J, et al. Lymph node clearance after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus open approach. Dig Dis. 2007;25:94–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schiessel R, Karner-Hanusch J, Herbst F, Teleky B, Wunderlich M. Intersphincteric resection for low rectal tumours. Br J Surg. 1994;81:1376–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Denost Q, Laurent C, Capdepont M, Zerbib F, Rullier E. Risk factors for fecal incontinence after intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:963–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bruheim K, Tveit KM, Skovlund E, et al. Sexual function in females after radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Acta Oncol. 2010;49:826–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bruheim K, Guren MG, Dahl AA, et al. Sexual function in males after radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:1012–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Akagi Y, Shirouzu K, Ogata Y, Kinugasa T. Oncologic outcomes of intersphincteric resection without preoperative chemoradiotherapy for very low rectal cancer. Surg Oncol. 2013;22:144–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Weiser MR, Quah HM, Shia J, et al. Sphincter preservation in low rectal cancer is facilitated by preoperative chemoradiation and intersphincteric dissection. Ann Surg. 2009;249:236–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shiomi A, Kinugasa Y, Yamaguchi T, Tsukamoto S, Tomioka H, Kagawa H. Feasibility of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for patients with cT1-T2 low rectal cancer. Dig Surg. 2013;30:272–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kuo LJ, Hung CS, Wu CH, et al. Oncological and functional outcomes of intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. J Surg Res. 2011;170:e93–8.

  15. Rullier E, Laurent C, Bretagnol F, Rullier A, Vendrely V, Zerbib F. Sphincter-saving resection for all rectal carcinomas: the end of the 2-cm distal rule. Ann Surg. 2005;241:465–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Spanos CP. Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: an overview. Int J Surg Oncol. 2012;2012:241512.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rullier E, Sa Cunha A, Couderc P, Rullier A, Gontier R, Saric J. Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection with coloplasty and coloanal anastomosis for mid and low rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2003;90:445–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Martin ST, Heneghan HM, Winter DC. Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes following pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2012;99:918–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Patel UB, Taylor F, Blomqvist L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-detected tumor response for locally advanced rectal cancer predicts survival outcomes: MERCURY experience. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3753–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hanly AM, Ryan EM, Rogers AC, et al. Multicenter evaluation of rectal cancer reimaging post neoadjuvant (MERRION) therapy. Ann Surg. 2014;259:723–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, Kapiteijn E, et al. Radiotherapy does not compensate for positive resection margins in rectal cancer patients: report of a multicenter randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55:1311–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nagtegaal ID, Marijnen CA, Kranenbarg EK, et al. Circumferential margin involvement is still an important predictor of local recurrence in rectal carcinoma: not one millimeter but two millimeters is the limit. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:350–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Akasu T, Takawa M, Yamamoto S, et al. Intersphincteric resection for very low rectal adenocarcinoma: univariate and multivariate analyses of risk factors for recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:2668–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

VP, AD, PP, RE, SA, and APS declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics statement

The authors declare that the study was performed in a manner to conform with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 and 2008 concerning Human and Animal Rights, and the authors followed the policy concerning Informed Consent as shown on Springer.com.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Ernest Borges Road, Parel, Mumbai, 400 012, India

    Vishwas D. Pai, Ashwin De Souza & Avanish Saklani

  2. Department of Medical Gastroenetrology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Ernest Borges Road, Parel, Mumbai, 400 012, India

    Prachi Patil, Reena Engineer & Supreeta Arya

  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Ernest Borges Road, Parel, Mumbai, 400 012, India

    Reena Engineer

  4. Department of Radiodiagnosis, Tata Memorial Hospital, Ernest Borges Road, Parel, Mumbai, 400 012, India

    Supreeta Arya

Authors
  1. Vishwas D. Pai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashwin De Souza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Prachi Patil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Reena Engineer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Supreeta Arya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Avanish Saklani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vishwas D. Pai.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pai, V.D., De Souza, A., Patil, P. et al. Intersphincteric resection and hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer: Short-term outcomes in the Indian setting. Indian J Gastroenterol 34, 23–28 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12664-014-0522-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12664-014-0522-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation