Over 14 years 276 patients with rectal cancer underwent surgery; 219 who underwent low anterior resection of the rectum with total mesorectal excision were studied. There were 24 (11.0 per cent) major anastomotic leaks associated with peritonitis or a pelvic collection and 14 (6.4 per cent) minor leaks that were asymptomatic and detected by contrast enema. All major leaks occurred at an anastomotic height of less than 6 cm (P = 0.08). The abdominoperineal excision rate was 9.1 per cent. Major leaks were associated with failure to defunction in 11 of 62 patients and with a defunctioning colostomy in 13 of 157 (P = 0.03). Of the 24 patients with major leaks seven developed peritonitis, one with a defunctioned anastomosis (P = 0.002), and three died (P = 0.02). Use of the sigmoid colon led to major leakage in seven of 32 patients compared with 17 of 187 when the splenic flexure was employed (P = 0.05). There was no increase in the local recurrence rate but only nine patients with major leakage and a temporary stoma have had these closed. Key technical factors include: a clean dry pelvic cavity, pulsatile colonic blood supply, suction drainage started during closure and mobilization of ample tissue to fill the pelvic space.
Results: The analysis included 46 patients in the ERP group and 45 in the standard care group. Median MFD time was reduced in the ERP group (3 days versus 6 days with standard care; P < 0·001), as was LOS (4 days versus 7 days; P < 0·001). The ERP significantly reduced the rate of medical complications (7 versus 27 per cent; P = 0·020), but not surgical complications (15 versus 11 per cent; P = 0·612), readmissions (4 versus 0 per cent; P = 0·153) or mortality (both 2 per cent; P = 0·987). QoL over 28 days was significantly better in the ERP group (P = 0·002). There was no difference in patient satisfaction. Conclusion:ERPs for open liver resection surgery are safe and effective. Patients treated in the ERP recovered faster, were discharged sooner, and had fewer medical-related complications and improved QoL. Registration number: ISRCTN03274575 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).
This paper examines the hypothesis that a reduction in the distal mural margin during anterior resection for sphincter conservation in rectal cancer excision is safe, provided total mesorectal excision is undertaken with wash-out of the clamped rectum. One hundred ninety-two patients underwent anterior resection and 21 (less than 10%) patients underwent abdomino-perineal excision (APE) by one surgeon (RJH). Anterior resections were classified as "curative" (79%) and "non-curative" (21%); in the "curative" sub-group less than 4% of patients developed local recurrence. The series was retrospectively analyzed for the effect of mural margins on local recurrence with 152 patients undergoing "curative" anterior resections and 40 patients undergoing "non-curative" resections. In the 152 specimens from curative resections, 110 had a resection margin greater than 1 cm and 42 had a resection margin less than 1 cm. Four patients developed local recurrence in the greater than 1 cm margin group (95% confidence interval: 0.8%-7.8%) and no patients developed local recurrence in the less than or equal to 1 cm margin group (95% confidence interval: 0%-5.9%). In each patient with local recurrence a cause for failure was apparent. There was no statistically significant difference in local recurrence rate between the less than or equal to 1 cm margin group and the greater than 1 cm margin group. A reduction in resection margin therefore did not compromise survival after anterior resection. The significance of lateral resection margins is discussed. The role of deep radiotherapy and cytotoxics are considered.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Risk of peritonitis and fatal septicaemia and the need t o defunction the low anastomosisBr.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.