Jin Cheon Kim1, Chan Wook Kim, Yong Sik Yoon, Hae Ok Lee, In Ja Park. 1. Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Institute of Innovative Cancer Research, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 86 Asanbyeongwon-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea. jckim@amc.seoul.kr
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether ultralow anterior resection with levator-sphincter reinforcement (uLAR-LSR), which is first introduced in the current study, offers functional preservation in patients with low rectal cancer. METHODS: We assessed the functional outcomes in 56 of 61 consecutively enrolled patients who underwent uLAR-LSR. After rectal resection, levator-sphincter reinforcement (LSR) was performed by approximation of the dissected muscles. The functional outcomes were assessed preoperatively, and then 3, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the sphincter or high-pressure zone length between the preoperative and postoperative periods in the uLAR-LSR group (P = 0.298-0.981), which indicated functional preservation by the LSR. The percentage of patients with moderate to severe incontinence (>10 using the Wexner score) was significantly decreased at 24 months as compared to 3 months postoperatively (15.7 vs, 39.6%, P < 0.001). At the limited mean follow-up of 41 months, local recurrence had been detected in one patient (1.8%). CONCLUSION: The uLAR-LSR method is a novel technical option, which maintains the anorectal function as well as accomplishing oncological safety during a short-term evaluation.
PURPOSE: To determine whether ultralow anterior resection with levator-sphincter reinforcement (uLAR-LSR), which is first introduced in the current study, offers functional preservation in patients with low rectal cancer. METHODS: We assessed the functional outcomes in 56 of 61 consecutively enrolled patients who underwent uLAR-LSR. After rectal resection, levator-sphincter reinforcement (LSR) was performed by approximation of the dissected muscles. The functional outcomes were assessed preoperatively, and then 3, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the sphincter or high-pressure zone length between the preoperative and postoperative periods in the uLAR-LSR group (P = 0.298-0.981), which indicated functional preservation by the LSR. The percentage of patients with moderate to severe incontinence (>10 using the Wexner score) was significantly decreased at 24 months as compared to 3 months postoperatively (15.7 vs, 39.6%, P < 0.001). At the limited mean follow-up of 41 months, local recurrence had been detected in one patient (1.8%). CONCLUSION: The uLAR-LSR method is a novel technical option, which maintains the anorectal function as well as accomplishing oncological safety during a short-term evaluation.