Intersphincteric Resection Versus Abdominoperineal Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. (August 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Peng, Baifu; Lu, Jiabao; Wu, Zixin; Li, Guanwei; Wei, Fang; Cao, Jie; Li, Wanglin
• Is Part Of: Surgical innovation. Volume 27:Number 4(2020)
• Page Start: 392
• Page End: 401
• Publication Date: 2020-08
• Subjects: intersphincteric resection -- abdominoperineal resection -- ultra-low rectal cancer; Surgery, Operative -- Periodicals; Endoscopic surgery -- Periodicals; Laparoscopic surgery -- Periodicals; Surgical Procedures, Operative -- Periodicals; Surgical Procedures, Minimally Invasive -- Periodicals; Diffusion of Innovation -- Periodicals; Chirurgie opératoire -- Périodiques; Chirurgie endoscopique -- Périodiques; Chirurgie laparoscopique -- Périodiques; 617.91
• DOI: 10.1177/1553350620918414
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1553-3506

Abstract

Background. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) has been the standard surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer for a century. In recent years, intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been increasingly used to avoid the permanent colostomy. Up to now, there is no relevant meta-analysis comparing the clinical efficacy of ISR and APR. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of these 2 procedures. Methods . A comprehensive search of online databases was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to obtain comparative studies of ISR and APR. Then the data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were extracted and analyzed. Results . A total of 12 studies covering 2438 patients were included. No significant differences were found between ISR and APR in gender, body mass index, distance from tumor to anal edge, operative time, and blood loss. In addition, hospital stay (weighted mean differences = −2.98 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −3.54 to −2.43; P < .00001) and postoperative morbidity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.99; P = .04) were significantly lower in ISR group compared with APR group. However, patients who underwent ISR showed lower pathological T-stage (T3T4%, OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.28 to 0.86; P = .01) and lymph node metastasis rate (OR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.59 to 1.01; P = .06) compared with those who underwent APR. Moreover, oncological outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. Conclusion . ISR may provide a safe alternative to APR, with shorter hospital stays, lower postoperative morbidity, and similar oncological outcomes. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.