Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Nov;22(11):1603-1613.
doi: 10.1111/codi.15258. Epub 2020 Sep 5.

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: the risk is functional rather than oncological. A 25-year experience from Bordeaux

Q Denost  1 , J-B Moreau  1 , V Vendrely  2 , B Celerier  1 , A Rullier  3 , V Assenat  1 , E Rullier  1
Affiliations

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: the risk is functional rather than oncological. A 25-year experience from Bordeaux

Q Denost et al. Colorectal Dis. 2020 Nov.

Abstract

Aim: There are few data evaluating the long-term outcomes of intersphincteric resection (ISR), especially the impact of inclusion of more juxtapositioned and intra-anal tumours on oncological and functional outcomes. We compared the oncological and functional results of patients treated by total mesorectal excision and ISR for low rectal cancer over a 25-year period.

Method: This is a retrospective study from a single institution evaluating results of ISR over three periods: 1990-1998, 1999-2006 and 2007-2014. Patients treated by partial or total ISR, with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, for low rectal cancer (≤ 6 cm from the anal verge) were included. We compared postoperative morbidity, quality of surgery and oncological and functional outcomes in the time periods studied.

Results: Of 813 patients operated on for low rectal cancer, 303 had ISR. Tumour stage did not differ; however, the distance of the tumour from the anorectal junction decreased from 1 to 0 cm (P < 0.001) and the distal resection margin shortened from 25 to 10 mm (P < 0.001) from 1990 to 2014. The postoperative morbidity and quality of surgery did not change significantly over time. The 5-year local recurrence (4.3% vs 5.9% vs 3.5%; P = 0.741) and disease-free survival (72% vs 71% vs 75%; P = 0.918) did not differ between the three time periods. Functional results improved during the last period; however, overall 42% of patients experienced major bowel dysfunction.

Conclusion: Pushing the envelope of sphincter-saving resection in ultra-low rectal cancer reaching or invading the anal sphincter did not compromise oncological and functional outcomes. The main limitation of the ISR procedure appears to be functional rather than oncological, suggesting that bowel rehabilitation programmes should be developed.

Keywords: Rectal cancer; distal resection margin; faecal incontinence; intersphincteric resection; radiotherapy; sphincter preservation.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Heald RJ, Moran BJ, Ryall RD et al. Rectal cancer: the Basingstoke experience of total mesorectal excision, 1978-1997. Arch Surg 1998; 133: 894-9.
    1. Mulsow J, Winter DC. Sphincter preservation for distal rectal cancer - a goal worth achieving at all costs? World J Gastroenterol 2011; 17: 855-61.
    1. Williams NS, Dixon MF, Johnston D. Reappraisal of the 5 centimetre rule of distal excision for carcinoma of the rectum: a study of distal intramural spread and of patients survival. Br J Surg 1983; 70: 150-4.
    1. Ueno H, Mochizuki H, Hashiguchi Y et al. Preoperative parameters expanding the indication of sphincter preserving surgery in patients with advanced low rectal cancer. Ann Surg 2004; 239: 34-42.
    1. Schiessel R, Karner-Hanusch J, Herbst F, Teleky B, Wunderlich M. Intersphincteric resection for low rectal tumours. Br J Surg 1994; 81: 1376-8.

LinkOut - more resources