Arnaud Pontallier1,2, Quentin Denost3,4, Bart Van Geluwe1,2, Jean-Philippe Adam1,2, Bertrand Celerier1,2, Eric Rullier1,2. 1. CHU Bordeaux, Department of Digestive Surgery, Saint André Hospital, University of Bordeaux, 1 rue Jean Burguet, 33075, Bordeaux Cedex, France. 2. Université Bordeaux Segalen, 33076, Bordeaux, France. 3. CHU Bordeaux, Department of Digestive Surgery, Saint André Hospital, University of Bordeaux, 1 rue Jean Burguet, 33075, Bordeaux Cedex, France. quentin.denost@chu-bordeaux.fr. 4. Université Bordeaux Segalen, 33076, Bordeaux, France. quentin.denost@chu-bordeaux.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Preliminary results of the transanal approach for low rectal cancer suggest better oncological outcomes than the conventional laparoscopic approach. We currently report the functional results. METHODS:From 2008 to 2012, 100 patients with low rectal cancer and suitable for sphincter-saving resection were randomized between transanal and laparoscopic low rectal dissection. Patients derived from this randomized trial were enrolled for functional assessment. End points were bowel function (LARS bowel and Wexner continence scores) and urogenital function (IPSS, IIEF-5 and FSFI-6 scores) obtained by questionnaires sent to patients with a follow-up more than 12 months. RESULTS: Overall, 76 patients were eligible and 72 responded to the questionnaire: 38 in the transanal group and 34 in the laparoscopic group. The bowel function did not differ between the transanal and the laparoscopic groups: LARS 36 versus 37 (p = 0.941) and Wexner 9 versus 10 (p = 0.786). The urologic function was also similar between the two groups: IPSS 5.5 versus 3.5 (p = 0.821). Among sexually active patients before surgery, 20 of 28 (71 %) patients in the transanal group and 9 of 23 (39 %) in the laparoscopic group maintained an activity after surgery (p = 0.02). Erectile function was also better in men after transanal compared to laparoscopic low rectal dissection: IIEF 17 versus 7 (p = 0.119). CONCLUSION:Transanal approach for low rectal cancer did not change bowel and urologic functions compared to the conventional laparoscopic approach. However, there was a trend to a better erectile function with a significantly higher rate of sexual activity in the transanal group.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Preliminary results of the transanal approach for low rectal cancer suggest better oncological outcomes than the conventional laparoscopic approach. We currently report the functional results. METHODS: From 2008 to 2012, 100 patients with low rectal cancer and suitable for sphincter-saving resection were randomized between transanal and laparoscopic low rectal dissection. Patients derived from this randomized trial were enrolled for functional assessment. End points were bowel function (LARS bowel and Wexner continence scores) and urogenital function (IPSS, IIEF-5 and FSFI-6 scores) obtained by questionnaires sent to patients with a follow-up more than 12 months. RESULTS: Overall, 76 patients were eligible and 72 responded to the questionnaire: 38 in the transanal group and 34 in the laparoscopic group. The bowel function did not differ between the transanal and the laparoscopic groups: LARS 36 versus 37 (p = 0.941) and Wexner 9 versus 10 (p = 0.786). The urologic function was also similar between the two groups: IPSS 5.5 versus 3.5 (p = 0.821). Among sexually active patients before surgery, 20 of 28 (71 %) patients in the transanal group and 9 of 23 (39 %) in the laparoscopic group maintained an activity after surgery (p = 0.02). Erectile function was also better in men after transanal compared to laparoscopic low rectal dissection: IIEF 17 versus 7 (p = 0.119). CONCLUSION: Transanal approach for low rectal cancer did not change bowel and urologic functions compared to the conventional laparoscopic approach. However, there was a trend to a better erectile function with a significantly higher rate of sexual activity in the transanal group.
Authors: María Fernández-Hevia; Salvadora Delgado; Antoni Castells; Marta Tasende; Dulce Momblan; Gabriel Díaz del Gobbo; Borja DeLacy; Jaume Balust; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: C Del Río; R Sánchez-Santos; V Oreja; J De Oca; S Biondo; D Parés; A Osorio; J Martí-Ragué; E Jaurrieta Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Charlotte L Deijen; Simone Velthuis; Alice Tsai; Stella Mavroveli; Elly S M de Lange-de Klerk; Colin Sietses; Jurriaan B Tuynman; Antonio M Lacy; George B Hanna; H Jaap Bonjer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: David A Westwood; Tahleesa J Cuda; A E Ricardo Hamilton; David Clark; Andrew R L Stevenson Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 3.781