腹腔镜与开腹直肠癌腹会阴联合切除术近期结果对比分析

目的探讨腹腔镜下直肠癌腹会阴联合切除术的可靠性及安全性。方法回顾性分析96例直肠癌腹会阴联合切除病例的临床资料,其中腹腔镜手术42例,同期开腹手术病例54例,对比分析腹腔镜与开腹直肠癌腹会阴联合切除术的近期效果。结果腹腔镜组与开腹组所有手术均达到肿瘤根治性切除标准。腹腔镜组与开腹组平均淋巴结清扫数目分别为14.6个和12.3个,术中出血量腹腔镜组少于开腹组,分别为382.0ml和519.4ml;术后排气时间、进食时间及术后患者下床时间腹腔镜组均较开腹组提前,且差异有统计学意义;腹腔镜组与开腹组并发症发生率分别为11.9%和16.7%,无统计学差异。结论腹腔镜直肠癌腹会阴联合切除术是安全可行的,且具有出血少、胃肠功能恢复快、并发症发生率低及术后住院时间短等优势。     

Metachronous leiomyosarcoma in colostomy after abdominoperineal resection for rectal carcinoma

Leiomyosarcoma of the colon is a rare neoplasm. It is widely known that primary malignant lesions may present either simultaneously (synchronous tumor) or at different times (metachronous tumor). The incidence of metachronous colonic mucosal carcinoma is generally considered to range from 3 to 5%. Metachronous leiomyosarcoma in colostomy 4 years after abdominoperineal resection for rectal carcinoma is unusual and we have found no reports on this in the literature. The clinical symptoms, diagnostic features, and mode of treatment are discussed.     

A systematic review of cancer related patient outcomes after anterior resection and abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer in the total mesorectal excision era

Purpose

It is a widely held view that anterior resection (AR) for rectal cancer is an oncologically superior operation to abdominoperineal excision (APE). However, some centres have demonstrated better outcomes with APE. We conducted a systematic review of high-quality studies within the total mesorectal excision (TME) era comparing outcomes of AR and APE.

Methods

A literature search was performed to identify studies within the TME era comparing AR and APE with regard to the following: circumferential resection margin (CRM) status, tumour perforation rates, specimen quality, local recurrence, overall survival (OS; 3 or 5 year), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Additional data regarding patient demographics and tumour characteristics was collected.

Results

Twenty four studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria with Newcastle–Ottawa scores of six or greater. Where a significant difference was found, all studies reported lower and more advanced tumours for APE and 4/5 studies observed more frequent use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in APE patients. Tumour perforation rates and CRM involvement where reported, were significantly greater for APE. 8 out of 10 studies showing significant differences in local recurrence reported higher rates for APE but no differences were observed with distant recurrence. Where differences were noted, AR was reported to have increased DFS, CSS and OS compared to APE.

Conclusions

Patients treated with AR have lower rates of tumour perforation and CRM involvement and tend to have better outcomes with regard to disease recurrence and survival. However, tumours treated by APE are lower and more locally advanced.     

The morbidity of perineal wounds following abdominoperineal resection for rectal carcinoma

The clinical charts of 44 patients who underwent an abdominoperineal resection for adenocarcinoma of the rectum at Roswell Park Memorial Institute were retrospectively reviewed. The morbidity of an open perineal wound versus the closed perineal wound were evaluated. All of the patients received a Nichol's bowel preparation and following the abdominal portion of the dissection reperitonealization of the pelvic floor was performed. The overall morbidity for the open perineal wounds was 21% compared to a morbidity of 63% for the perineal wounds that were closed primarily. The mean length of hospitalization from the time of abdominoperineal resection was 21 days for the open perineal group and 22 days for the closed perineal group. The inclusion of wound sinus tracts in our morbidity assessment may explain the higher complication rate of the closed wound group than previously reported in the literature. This retrospective review emphasizes that the morbidity of the open perineal wound following abdominoperineal resection has been overemphasized. One is trading a potentially increased incidence of septic wound complications in the closed perineum for a protracted wound closure in the open perineum.     

高龄直肠癌患者腹会阴联合切除术后会阴切口并发症发生的相关危险因素

探讨高龄直肠癌患者腹会阴联合切除术(APR)后会阴切口并发症发生的相关危险因素。方法采用回顾性病例对照研究的方法,分析中国医学科学院肿瘤医院结直肠外科2007年1月至2018年9月行APR的72例高龄(≥80岁)直肠癌患者的临床病理资料。采用单因素和多因素分析确定影响高龄直肠癌患者APR后会阴切口并发症发生的危险因素。结果72例患者中,男47例,女25例,年龄为(81.8±1.8)岁。术后会阴切口并发症发生率为23.6%(17/72),其中切口感染5例,切口脂肪液化4例,切口延迟愈合8例。所有患者均顺利出院,无围手术期死亡病例。单因素分析显示,术前血清白蛋白<35 g/L、术中置入氟尿嘧啶缓释剂/洛铂冲洗液、盆底修复、糖尿病和冠心病与高龄患者APR术后会阴切口并发症的发生均有关(均P<0.05)。多因素分析显示,未行盆底修复(OR=0.17,95%CI为0.04~0.82;P=0.027)和糖尿病(OR=4.32,95%CI为1.05~17.81;P=0.043)为高龄直肠癌患者APR后会阴切口发生的独立危险因素。结论行APR的高龄直肠癌患者应尽可能保留盆底腹膜,并予以关闭。围手术期血糖监测也是预防会阴切口并发症发生的有力保障。     

Postoperative morbidity and mortality after anterior resection with preventive diverting loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for rectal cancer: A updated systematic review and meta-analysis

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the perioperative morbidity after anterior resection with diverting loop ileostomy (LI) versus colostomy (LC) and its reversal for rectal cancer. The studies on the application of loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy in anterior resection published from January 2000 to January 2020 were searched in the databases of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Clinical trials. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies were included according to inclusion criteria. Eight studies (2 RCTs and 6 cohort studies) totaling 1451 patients (821 LI and 630 LC) were included in the meta-analysis. The morbidity related to stoma formation and closure did not demonstrate significant differences. Significantly more LCs were complicated by stoma prolapse & retraction (OR:0.26,95%CI:0.11–0.60,P = 0.001), parastomal hernia (OR = 0.52,95%CI:0.30–0.88, P = 0.01), surgical site infection (SSI) (OR = 0.24,95%CI:0.11–0.49,P < 0.0001) and incisional hernias (OR = 0.39,95%CI:0.19–0.83,P = 0.01) than by LIs. Patients with LI demonstrated significantly more complications related to the stoma, such as dehydration (OR = 0.52,95%CI:0.30–0.88, P = 0.01) and ileus (OR = 2.23,95%CI:1.12–4.43, P = 0.02) than patients with LC. While after the subgroup analysis of different publication years, LI could reduce the risk of the morbidity after stoma formation in previous years group (P = 0.04) with a lower heterogeneity (I² = 37%); LC could reduce the incidence of parastomal dermatitis in recent years group (P < 0.0001) without heterogeneity in each subgroup (I² = 0%). Cumulative meta-analysis detected significant turning points in dehydration, SSI, and ileus. This meta-analysis recommends diverting LI in the anterior resection for rectal cancer, but there is a risk of dehydration, irritant dermatitis, and ileus.     

Functional results and quality of life for patients with very low rectal cancer undergoing coloanal anastomosis or perineal colostomy with colonic muscular graft.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare functional results and quality of life (QoL) of two salvage techniques: coloanal anastomosis (CAA) or perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection for very low rectal cancer. METHODS: Between 1991 and 2001, 50 patients were operated for a very low rectal adenocarcinoma and analyzed after a follow-up greater than one year and because there was no relapse or no treatment, they were included in the analysis. Thirty-eight patients had a CAA, including: straight anastomosis (n=23), J pouch (n=10), coloplasty (n=2) and intersphincteric resection (n=3). Twelve patients underwent a PC. RESULTS: Vaizey's incontinence score was equivalent for the two groups: CAA 12 (0-22) versus PC 11 (8-13). The only differences were more frequent fractioned stools for the CAA group and increased pad soiling for the PC group. Overall QoL scores (QLQ C-30) were equivalent for CAA and PC. CONCLUSIONS: For very low rectal tumors, the choice of surgical technique must be based on oncologic rather than future functional or QoL criteria, because both approaches seem to provide similar results.     

Comparison of oncological outcomes between low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study using a multicenter database in Japan

BackgroundIt remains controversial whether the abdominoperineal resection (APR) procedure itself has a negative impact on prognosis compared with sphincter-saving surgery (SSS). The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the operation type affects the prognostic outcome in rectal cancer using a multicenter database in Japan.MethodsThe study involved 2533 patients who underwent APR or SSS and were registered in the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum database, which includes data from 74 centers, between 2003 and 2007. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). The secondary endpoints were local recurrence rate (LRR) and pathological radial margin (pRM) status.ResultsMultivariate analysis identified pathological tumor depth, lymph node status, and pRM status to be associated with oncological outcomes (OS, RFS, LRR). Although the oncological outcomes were worse after APR than after SSS in univariate analysis, there was no significant difference in OS (hazard ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85–1.37) or RFS (hazard ratio 1.06; 95% CI 0.87–1.30) between APR and SSS. There was also no significant difference in LRR (odds ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.70–1.77). Multivariate analysis showed that operation type was associated with positive pRM (odds ratio 3.13, 95% CI 0.18–0.56).ConclusionsThere was no significant difference in oncological outcomes between APR and SSS for rectal cancer. The risk of positive pRM was higher for APR and performing radial margin-negative surgery is an important factor in improving the oncological outcomes of APR.     

A case of lateral pelvic lymph node recurrence after TME for submucosal rectal carcinoma successfully treated by lymph node dissection with en bloc resection of the internal iliac vessels

In Japan, lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) is generally performed for the treatment of T3-4 lower rectal carcinoma, and not for T1 lower rectal carcinoma, because of a low positive rate in patients with T1 lesion. We experienced a rare case of lateral pelvic lymph node recurrence after total mesorectal resection for T1 lower rectal carcinoma, successfully treated by LLND with en bloc resection of the internal iliac vessels. There is no guideline for the treatment of patients with isolated lateral lymph node recurrence; however, surgery should be considered for such patients.