Advertisement

Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancers

How do we do it?
  • J.-T. LiangEmail author
  • H.-S. Lai
  • P.-H. Lee
Multimedia article

Abstract

Background

The appropriateness of the laparoscopic approach for the resection of rectal cancer has been controversial, although it is well established in colon cancer. This is a phase II study of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the treatment of lower rectal cancers.

Methods

Patients with lower rectal adenocarcinoma located within 6 cm above the anal verge were recruited and subjected to laparoscopic APR. The surgical principle included en bloc resection with high ligation of inferior mesenteric vessels by no-touch isolation and total mesorectal excision. Details of the surgical procedures are presented in the video. The technical efficiency and outcome of this surgical approach were evaluated prospectively. This study was approved by the institutional review board of National Taiwan University Hospital (NTUH).

Results

A total of 22 patients were enrolled in the study from January 2003 to December 2004 under the ethical guidelines of clinical trials in NTUH. There were 12 females and 10 males, with an age distribution of 62.5 ± 10.4 years. The body mass index was 24.8 ± 4.0 kg/m2. Physical status (American Society of Anesthesiology classification) was class I in 12, class II in eight, and class III in two patients. Tumor size was 44.0 ± 12.0 mm in diameter. Two patients were in pathologic TNM stage I, 14 in stage II, and six in stage III. The operation time was 214.0 ± 28.4 min. Blood loss was 54.0 ± 14.0 ml. Because the tumor specimen was retrieved from a perineal wound, the five 5 to 12 mm working ports constituted the abdominal wound. There were no major complications. However, wound infection of port sites was detected in one patient. The patients had a quick convalescence, as evaluated by the length of postoperative ileus (48.0 ± 12.0 h), length of hospitalization (8.0 ± 2.0 days), and degree of postoperative pain (3.5 ± 0.5 visual analogue scale). Return to partial activity, full activity, and work was 2.0 ± 0.5, 4.0 ± 0.8, and 6.0 ± 0.5 weeks, respectively. The number of cleared lymph nodes was 14.0 ± 2.0. During follow-up (median, 18 months; range, 6–30), lung metastasis and local pelvic recurrence developed in one and two patients, respectively. Besides the expenses covered by the National Bureau of Health Insurance of Taiwan, the additional payment by patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures was NT $24,000 ± 3000 (1 U.S. dollar = 32 NT$).

Conclusions

In our clinical setting, laparoscopic APR can be performed with good technical efficiency, quick functional recovery, and mild disability. The short-term oncologic results of laparoscopic APR seem to be acceptable, but further long-term follow-up for these patients is mandatory to define the oncologic outcomes of this approach.

Keywords

Rectal cancer Laparoscopic surgery Abdominoperineal resection 

Supplementary material

Video contribution

References

  1. 1.
    Baker RP, White EE, Titu L, Duthie GS, Lee PWR, Monsonj RT (2002) Does laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection of the rectum compromise long-term survival? Dis Colon Rectum 45: 1481–1485CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (1994) General rules for clinical and pathological studies on cancer of the colon, rectum, and anus. Kanehara, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lacy AM, Carcia-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, et al (2002) Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomized trial. Lancet 359: 2224–2229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leung KL, Kwok SPY, Lam SCW, et al (2004) Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomized trial. Lancet 363: 1187–1192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liang JT (2003) Comparison of medial-to-lateral versus traditional lateral-to-medial dissection sequences for the resection of rectosigmoid cancers [Letter]. World J Surg 27: 1337–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liang JT, Lai HS, Huang KC, et al (2003) Comparison of medial-to-lateral versus traditional lateral-to-medial dissection sequences for the resection of rectosigmoid cancers—a randomized controlled clinical trial. World J Surg 27: 190–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liang JT, Shieh MJ, Chen CN, et al (2002) Prospective evaluation of laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus laparotomy with resection in the management of complex polyps of the sigmoid colon. World J Surg 26: 377–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Misom JW, Böhm B (1996) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Milsom JW, Böhm B, Hammerhofer KA, et al. (1998) A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg 187: 46–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nelson H, Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, et al (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350: 2050–2059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sjoerdsma W, Meijer DW, Jansen A, et al (2000) Comparison of efficiencies of three techniques for colon surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Technique 10: 47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Turnbull RB, Kyle K, Watson FR, et al (1967) Cancer of the colon: the influence of the no-touch technique on survival rates. Ann Surg 166: 420–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of SurgeryNational Taiwan University Hospital and College of MedicineTaipeiR.O.C.

Personalised recommendations