ObjectiveTo analyze the relation between preoperative staging and surgical decision-making in rectal cancer patients from the West China Colorectal Cancer Database (DACCA) and to identify key factors influencing the selection of surgical approach. MethodsBased on the updated DACCA dataset as of April 24, 2024, the patients with rectal cancer were included. Chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the correlation between preoperative staging [(y)cTNM stage] and the selection of sphincter-preserving surgery or intersphincteric resection (ISR). Additional factors, including age, body mass index (BMI), tumor location, and nutritional score, were assessed for their impact on surgical choices. ResultsA total of 2 733 rectal cancer patients were included. Preoperative (y)cTNM staging distribution was as follows: 23 (0.8%) at stage 0, 388 (14.2%) at stage Ⅰ, 760 (27.8%) at stage Ⅱ, 873 (31.9%) at stage Ⅲ, and 689 (25.2%) at stage Ⅳ. The preoperative stage Ⅱ–Ⅳ were the independent risk factors for both the choices of sphincter-preserving surgery and ISR [stage Ⅱ: sphincter-preserving surgery: OR(95%CI)=13.634 (4.952, 37.540), P<0.001; ISR: OR (95%CI)=3.097 (2.108, 4.551), P<0.001. stage Ⅲ: sphincter-preserving surgery: OR (95%CI)=14.677 (5.339, 40.345), P<0.001; ISR: OR (95%CI)=2.985 (2.042, 4.363), P<0.001. stage Ⅳ: OR (95%CI)=25.653 (9.320, 70.610), P<0.001; ISR: OR (95%CI)=4.445 (3.015, 6.555), P<0.001]. The low/ultra-low tumor location was an independent risk factor for choice of sphincter-preserving surgery [OR (95%CI)=2.038 (1.489, 2.791), P<0.001], but which was an independent protective factor for the choice of ISR [OR (95%CI)=0.013 (0.009, 0.019), P<0.001]. ConclusionsResults of this study are consistent with clinical practice, indicating that preoperative staging is the core basis for surgical decision-making in rectal cancer. With the progression of staging, patients are more inclined to choose non-sphincter-preserving and non-ISR procedures. Although low/ultralow tumors pose great challenges for anal preservation, the proportion of ISR selection remains relatively high. The anatomical location of the tumor and nutritional status also significantly affect surgical selection, necessitating comprehensive preoperative evaluation.
ObjectiveTo explain the latest concepts of colorectal surgery, and predict the future direction of it. MethodsA review and summary based on the clinical experience of our hospitals and theses over the past years and new advances on the researches in home and abroad were performed. ResultsDoctors should attach more importance to anal preserving operation; and there should be more usage of fast track in colorectal surgery. Besides, predicting low risk of postoperative complications and digitizing colorectal surgery also needed more attention. ConclusionThose aspects of colorectal surgery in the result need further development.
【摘要】目的 探讨低位直肠癌保肛手术的术式选择及其治疗效果。方法 回顾性分析我院1997年7月至2002年7月期间行低位直肠癌保肛手术治疗的90例患者的临床资料。结果 行低位直肠癌保肛手术者占同期的66.2%(90/136)。90例中距肛缘5 cm以内者14例，5~8 cm者76例； 行Dixon术84例，经肛门局部切除术4例，Parks术2例。术后发生吻合口漏8例，其中Dixon术7例，Parks术 1例； 肛门狭窄2例，其中Dixon术1例，Parks术 1例； 无手术死亡。90例患者术后均获随访,64例随访23~59个月，中位随访时间为39个月，其中Dixon术59例，Parks术2例，局部切除术3例。局部复发6例，其中Dixon术5例，局部切除术1例。 结论 Dixon术是低位直肠癌保肛手术的主要术式； 在严格掌握适应证的情况下，可考虑施行低位直肠癌的局部切除术。
目的 探讨腹腔镜超低位直肠癌保肛手术的可行性。方法 回顾性总结2004年9月至2007年10月期间行腹腔镜超低位直肠癌保肛手术58例患者的临床资料。结果 54例在腹腔镜下顺利完成手术，中转开腹4例，无手术死亡病例。平均手术时间187 min，术中平均失血110 ml，术后肛门排气时间平均为2.3 d。手术切除淋巴结平均为18.5个； 随访6~42个月(平均17.6个月)未见切口种植及吻合口复发。结论 腹腔镜超低位直肠癌保肛手术具有创伤小、术后恢复快等优点，可以取得比开腹手术更好的根治效果。
目的 探讨国产单吻合器在低位直肠癌保肛手术中的临床应用效果。方法 结合相关文献回顾性分析2003年1月至2007年12月期间我院收治的128例低位直肠癌中行直肠全系膜切除（TME）且应用国产管状吻合器及荷包钳进行手术的91例患者的资料。结果 全组无手术死亡病例，保肛均获成功，保肛率为71.09%（91/128），术后病理检查肿瘤远端切缘无癌残留。未发生吻合口出血及狭窄； 1例（1.10%）发生吻合口漏，经保守治疗后痊愈； 无大便失禁发生。全组获随访1～5年，平均3.8年，局部复发6例（6.59%）； 总的1年生存率为97.80%（89/91），3年生存率为80.00%（72/90），5年生存率为68.97%（60/87）。结论 TME联合国产管状吻合器及荷包钳应用于低位直肠癌根治术，可提高保肛率，操作简单安全，疗效满意。
ObjectiveTo investigate current status of anal sphincter preservation in low rectal cancer.MethodThe recent literatures on the progress of anal sphincter preservation in the low rectal cancer were reviewed.ResultsIn the past, the surgical treatment of the low rectal cancer was mainly based on the Miles. With the deepening of the anatomical understanding, the improvement of surgical concepts, and the development of minimally invasive techniques, the treatment concept of the low rectal cancer had gradually entered the era of retaining anal and anal function. At present, many surgical methods including the transanal local excision, intersphincteric resection, transanal total mesorectal excision, etc. could be applied to the anal sphincter preservation of the lower rectal cancer, but the advantages and disadvantages of each surgical procedure and the scope of application were slightly different.ConclusionsAlthough there are many surgical procedures that can be applied to patients with low rectal cancer, none of them can achieve perfection in terms of retaining anal and anal function, reducing complications and recurrence rates, and improving survival. It is believed that with continuous understanding of rectal anatomy by surgeons, emergence of various neoadjuvant chemoradiation and new devices, and more anal sphincter preservation procedures and even artificial anal surgery, treatment of low rectal cancer will also be more good care for anal and maintenance function, so that patients can obtain a higher quality and a long-term survival opportunity.
Objective To investigate the safety and feasibility of the total mesorectal excision （TME） and intersphincteric resection （ISR） for ultra-low rectal cancer and anal sphincter preservation surgery for anorectal cancer， and to evaluate the short term efficacy and postoperative anal function. Methods A retrospective analysis of clinical and follow-up data of 86 cases with TME＋ISR for ultra-low rectal cancer and anorectal cancer from January 2009 to December 2010 in West China Hospital of Sichuan University were performed. Results Eighty-six patients were successfully performed the operation， the lower edge of tumor from the anus was 1-5 cm （average 1.63cm）； tumor diameter was 2-7 cm （average 3.4cm）. The tumors were high differentiation in 4 cases， moderately differentiation in 60 cases，and poorly differentiation in 22 cases. The pTNM stages were stageⅠin 12 cases， stageⅡA in 11 cases， stage ⅡB in 15 cases， stage ⅢA in 2 cases， stage ⅢB in 23 cases， stage ⅢC in 16 cases， and stage Ⅳ in 7 cases. There were postoperative anastomotic leakage in 3 cases， perianal infection in 2 cases （1 case received reoperation with permanent colostomy because of pelvic peritoneal infection caused by perianal severe infections）. Anastomotic bleeding and anastomotic stenosis were of 2 cases respectively. Rectovaginal fistula， inflammatory ileus， urinary retention， and abdominal infection were of 1 case respectively. Eighty-six patients were followed-up for 12-24 months， the mean time was 18 months. Liver metastases was found in 1 case in 7 months after operation， 2 cases dead in the 7th month and 12th month after operation respectively. Local recurrence were found in 3 cases （3.5%） in 1 year after operation. The survival rate of 1-year was 97.7% （84/86）. The times of defecation was 1-5 times a day. The Kirwan’s score level on function of control defecation was 1-2 grade. Conclusions TME＋ISR for low rectal cancer and anorectal cancer is a viable， safe， and radical operation type for preservation of anus. The short term efficacy is satisfactory.