{"title":"括约肌间切除术与腹会阴切除术治疗超低直肠癌的长期肿瘤学结果评估:单中心5年经验","authors":"FakhroSadat Anaraki , Mahdi Alemrajabi , Ramin Shekouhi , Maryam Sohooli , Seyed-Ali Sabz","doi":"10.1016/j.sipas.2023.100191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Abdominoperineal resection (APR) is considered the gold standard surgical treatment for ultra-low rectal cancer. Anus-preserving alternative procedures have been tested to avoid the need for a permanent colostomy. The present study compares the functional and oncological outcomes of the traditional APR methods with inter-sphincteric resection (ISR).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Sixty patients with ultra-low rectal cancers that underwent tumor resection using the ISR and APR methods were compared retrospectively. Patients' demographic information as well as tumor characteristics were evaluated. All patients were followed after the operation every three months for two years, and then every six months for at least three years.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Thirty-four (56.6%) patients were male, and 26 (43.3%) were females, which showed no statistical significance between the two groups. The mean tumor distance from the anal verge in the APR group was 5.11±0.06 cm and in the ISR group was 5.22±1.1 cm. In the APR group, 9 (30%) patients developed primary tumor recurrence, while in the ISR group, 10 (33.3%) patients had relapses. The observed difference was not statistically significant. However, the study showed that patients with a T stage of T2 or higher had a higher probability of tumor recurrence.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There is no significant difference in the efficacy of the ISR method compared with the conventional APR for the treatment of ultra-low rectal cancer.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74890,"journal":{"name":"Surgery in practice and science","volume":"14 ","pages":"Article 100191"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of long-term oncological outcomes of inter-sphincter resection compared with abdominoperineal resection for treatment of ultra-low rectal cancers: a single center 5-year experience\",\"authors\":\"FakhroSadat Anaraki , Mahdi Alemrajabi , Ramin Shekouhi , Maryam Sohooli , Seyed-Ali Sabz\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.sipas.2023.100191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Abdominoperineal resection (APR) is considered the gold standard surgical treatment for ultra-low rectal cancer. Anus-preserving alternative procedures have been tested to avoid the need for a permanent colostomy. The present study compares the functional and oncological outcomes of the traditional APR methods with inter-sphincteric resection (ISR).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Sixty patients with ultra-low rectal cancers that underwent tumor resection using the ISR and APR methods were compared retrospectively. Patients' demographic information as well as tumor characteristics were evaluated. All patients were followed after the operation every three months for two years, and then every six months for at least three years.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Thirty-four (56.6%) patients were male, and 26 (43.3%) were females, which showed no statistical significance between the two groups. The mean tumor distance from the anal verge in the APR group was 5.11±0.06 cm and in the ISR group was 5.22±1.1 cm. In the APR group, 9 (30%) patients developed primary tumor recurrence, while in the ISR group, 10 (33.3%) patients had relapses. The observed difference was not statistically significant. However, the study showed that patients with a T stage of T2 or higher had a higher probability of tumor recurrence.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There is no significant difference in the efficacy of the ISR method compared with the conventional APR for the treatment of ultra-low rectal cancer.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74890,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgery in practice and science\",\"volume\":\"14 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100191\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgery in practice and science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666262023000372\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery in practice and science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666262023000372","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的腹会阴切除术(APR)被认为是超低位直肠癌的金标准手术治疗方法。为了避免永久性结肠造口手术的需要,已经测试了保留肛门的替代方法。本研究比较了传统APR方法与括约肌间切除术(ISR)的功能和肿瘤结果。方法对60例超低位直肠癌行ISR法和APR法切除的患者进行回顾性比较。评估患者的人口统计学信息及肿瘤特征。所有患者术后每3个月随访2年,然后每6个月随访至少3年。结果男性34例(56.6%),女性26例(43.3%),两组比较差异无统计学意义。APR组肿瘤距肛缘平均距离5.11±0.06 cm, ISR组肿瘤距肛缘平均距离5.22±1.1 cm。在APR组中,9例(30%)患者发生原发性肿瘤复发,而在ISR组中,10例(33.3%)患者复发。观察到的差异无统计学意义。然而,研究表明,T期为T2或更高的患者肿瘤复发的可能性更高。结论ISR法与常规APR法治疗超低位直肠癌的疗效无显著差异。
Evaluation of long-term oncological outcomes of inter-sphincter resection compared with abdominoperineal resection for treatment of ultra-low rectal cancers: a single center 5-year experience
Objectives
Abdominoperineal resection (APR) is considered the gold standard surgical treatment for ultra-low rectal cancer. Anus-preserving alternative procedures have been tested to avoid the need for a permanent colostomy. The present study compares the functional and oncological outcomes of the traditional APR methods with inter-sphincteric resection (ISR).
Methods
Sixty patients with ultra-low rectal cancers that underwent tumor resection using the ISR and APR methods were compared retrospectively. Patients' demographic information as well as tumor characteristics were evaluated. All patients were followed after the operation every three months for two years, and then every six months for at least three years.
Results
Thirty-four (56.6%) patients were male, and 26 (43.3%) were females, which showed no statistical significance between the two groups. The mean tumor distance from the anal verge in the APR group was 5.11±0.06 cm and in the ISR group was 5.22±1.1 cm. In the APR group, 9 (30%) patients developed primary tumor recurrence, while in the ISR group, 10 (33.3%) patients had relapses. The observed difference was not statistically significant. However, the study showed that patients with a T stage of T2 or higher had a higher probability of tumor recurrence.
Conclusion
There is no significant difference in the efficacy of the ISR method compared with the conventional APR for the treatment of ultra-low rectal cancer.