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
Clinical Trial
. 2021 Feb 17;21(1):171.
doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-07848-y.

Long-term oncological outcomes of low anterior resection for rectal cancer with and without preservation of the left colic artery: a retrospective cohort study

Yuwen Luo #  1   2 , Rongjiang Li #  3 , Deqing Wu #  2 , Jun Zeng #  3 , Junjiang Wang  1   2 , Xianzhe Chen  1   2 , Chengzhi Huang  2   4 , Yong Li  1   2   4   5 , Xueqing Yao  6   7   8   9
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Long-term oncological outcomes of low anterior resection for rectal cancer with and without preservation of the left colic artery: a retrospective cohort study

Yuwen Luo et al. BMC Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: There is uncertainty in the literature about preserving the left colic artery (LCA) during low anterior resection for rectal cancer. We analyzed the effect of preserving the LCA on long-term oncological outcomes.

Methods: We retrospectively collected clinicopathological and follow-up details of patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal cancer in the General Surgery Department of Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, from January 2014 to December 2015. Cases were divided into low ligation (LL), LCA preserved, or high ligation (HL), LCA not preserved, of the inferior mesenteric artery. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were compared between the two groups.

Results: Altogether, there were 221 and 295 cases in the LL group and HL groups, respectively. Operating time in the LL group was significantly longer than in the HL group (224.7 vs. 211.7 min, p = 0.039). Postoperative 30-day mortality, early complications including anastomotic leakage showed no significant differences between the LL and HL groups (postoperative 30-day mortality, 0.9% LL, 1.4% HL, p = 0.884; early complications, 41.2% LL, 38.3% HL, p = 0.509; anastomotic leakage 8.6% LL, 13.2% HL, p = 0.100). The median follow-up periods were 51.4 (7-61) months in the LL group and 51.2 (8-61) months in the HL group. During follow-up, the percentages of patients who died, had local recurrence, or had metastases were 39.8, 7.7, and 38.5%, respectively, in the LL group and 39, 8.5, and 40%, respectively, in the HL group; these differences were not significant (all p > 0.05). The 5-year OS and DFS were 69.6 and 59.6% in the LL group, respectively, and 69.1 and 56.2% in the HL group, respectively; these differences were not significant (all p > 0.05). After stratification by tumor-node-metastasis stage, the difference between the 5-year OS and DFS for stages I, II, and III cancer were not significant (all p > 0.05).

Conclusions: The long-term oncological outcomes of LL group are comparable with HL group. LL cannot be supported due to the absence of lower complication rates and the longer operating times.

Keywords: Inferior mesenteric artery; Left colic artery; Long-term oncologic outcomes; Rectal cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Kaplan–Meier estimates of overall survival and disease-free survival for all anterior resection cases (a and b, respectively). Abbreviations: LCA, left colic artery; HL: high ligation; LL: low ligation
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kaplan–Meier estimates of overall survival and disease-free survival for all anterior resection cases in stage I (a and b, respectively), stage II (c and d, respectively), and stage III (e and f, respectively). Abbreviations: LCA, left colic artery; HL: high ligation; LL: low ligation
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lakkis Z, Manceau G, Bridoux V, Brouquet A, Kirzin S, Maggiori L, de Chaisemartin C, Lefevre JH, Panis Y. Management of rectal cancer: the 2016 French guidelines. Colorectal Dis. 2017;19(2):115–122. doi: 10.1111/codi.13550. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Berho M, Narang R, Van Koughnett JA, Wexner SD. Modern multidisciplinary perioperative management of rectal cancer. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(3):260–266. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.2887. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Paschke S, Jafarov S, Staib L, Kreuser ED, Maulbecker-Armstrong C, Roitman M, Holm T, Harris CC, Link KH, Kornmann M. Are colon and rectal cancer two different tumor entities? A proposal to abandon the term colorectal cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(9):2577. doi: 10.3390/ijms19092577. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pox C, Aretz S, Bischoff SC, Graeven U, Hass M, Heußner P, Hohenberger W, Holstege A, Hübner J, Kolligs F, et al. S3-guideline colorectal cancer version 1.0. Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie. 2013;51(8):753–854. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1350264. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources