Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Treatment for early ultralow rectal cancer: pull-through intersphincteric stapled transection and anastomosis (PISTA) versus low anterior resection

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the functional and oncologic results of pull-through intersphincteric stapled transection and anastomosis (PISTA) with low anterior resection (LAR) in the treatment for early ultralow rectal cancer.

Methods

A total of 278 patients with early ultralow rectal cancer were retrospectively included and analyzed, with 136 in the PISTA group and 142 in the LAR group.

Results

Gender, age, tumor diameter, distance from the dentate line to the inferior margin of the tumor, tumor stage, length of operation and postoperative complications were comparable in the two groups. Compared with the LAR group, the PISTA group had a more accurate distal transection site, a lower daily fecal frequency (6 (5–7) vs. 8 (7–9), p < 0.001) and a lower Wexner incontinence score (13 (10–14) vs. 14 (13–16), p < 0.001) 3 months after ileostomy reversal, and a higher rate of satisfactory fecal continence (97.1 % vs. 90.8 %, p = 0.043). The follow-up period of the PISTA group was similar to that of the LAR group (56 (30–81) months vs. 54 (30–80) months, p = 0.982). The PISTA group was associated with a lower local recurrence rate (2.2 % vs. 11.3 %, p = 0.003). Kaplan–Meier analysis also showed that the PISTA group was associated with longer overall survival (p = 0.018) and longer local recurrence-free survival (p = 0.004) than the LAR group, while distant metastasis-free survival (p = 0.896) was comparable in the two groups. Multivariate analysis identified lymph node metastasis (p < 0.001) and operation (PISTA vs. LAR, p = 0.031) as independent predictive factors for local recurrence-free survival.

Conclusions

PISTA is a technically simple, oncologically safe and functionally favorable procedure for the treatment for early ultralow rectal cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Han JG, Wei GH, Gao ZG, Zheng Y, Wang ZJ (2009) Intersphincteric resection with direct coloanal anastomosis for ultralow rectal cancer: the experience of People’s Republic of China. Dis Colon Rectum 52:950–957

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Williams NS, Dixon MF, Johnston D (1983) Reappraisal of the 5 centimetre rule of distal excision for carcinoma of the rectum: a study of distal intramural spread and of patients’ survival. Br J Surg 70:150–154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Tjandra JJ, Kilkenny JW, Buie WD et al (2005) Practice parameters for the management of rectal cancer (revised). Dis Colon Rectum 48:411–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dai Y, Jiang JB, Bi DS, Jin ZT, Sun JZ, Hu SY (2008) Preservation of the continence function after intersphincteric resection using a prolapsing technique in the patients with low rectal cancer and its clinical prognosis. Chin Med J 121:2016–2020

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schiessel R, Karner-Hanusch J, Herbst F, Teleky B, Wunderlich M (1994) Intersphincteric resection for low rectal tumours. Br J Surg 81:1376–1378

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schiessel R, Novi G, Holzer B et al (2005) Technique and long-term results of intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1858–1865

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hohenberger W, Merkel S, Matzel K, Bittorf B, Papadopoulos T, Göhl J (2006) The influence of abdomino-peranal (intersphincteric) resection of lower third rectal carcinoma on the rates of sphincter preservation and locoregional recurrence. Colorectal Dis 8:23–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Yamada K, Ogata S, Saiki Y, Fukunaga M, Tsuji Y, Takano M (2009) Long-term results of intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 52:1065–1071

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jorge JM, Wexner SD (1993) Etiology and management of fecal Incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36:77–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bennett RS (1976) The place of pull-through operations in treatment of carcinoma of the rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 19:420–424

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fu CG, Muto T, Masaki T (1997) Results of the double stapling procedure in colorectal surgery. Surg Today 27:706–709

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ito M, Saito N, Sugito M, Kobayashi A, Nishizawa Y, Tsunoda Y (2009) Analysis of clinical factors associated with anal function after intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 52:64–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rasmussen OO, Petersen IK, Christiansen J (2003) Anorectal function following low anterior resection. Colorectal Dis 5:258–261

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Amin AI, Hallböök O, Lee AJ, Sexton R, Moran BJ, Heald RJ (2003) A 5-cm colonic J pouch colo-anal reconstruction following anterior resection for low rectal cancer results in acceptable evacuation and continence in the long term. Colorectal Dis 5:33–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Chude GG, Rayate NV, Patris V et al (2008) Defunctioning loop ileostomy with low anterior resection for distal rectal cancer: should we make an ileostomy as a routine procedure? A prospective randomized study. Hepatogastroenterology 55:1562–1567

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang HT, Gao XH, Fu CG, Wang L, Meng RG, Liu LJ (2010) Diagnosis and treatment of diffuse cavernous hemangioma of the rectum: report of 17 cases. World J Surg 34:2477–2486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the National Nature Science Fund of China, No. 30973460, No. 81201936, No. 81272561.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that no conflict of interest exists.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Colorectal Surgery of Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China

    C. G. Fu, X. H. Gao, H. Wang, Z. Q. Yu, W. Zhang, E. D. Yu, L. J. Liu & R. G. Meng

Authors
  1. C. G. Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. X. H. Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Z. Q. Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. W. Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E. D. Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. L. J. Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. R. G. Meng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. G. Fu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fu, C.G., Gao, X.H., Wang, H. et al. Treatment for early ultralow rectal cancer: pull-through intersphincteric stapled transection and anastomosis (PISTA) versus low anterior resection. Tech Coloproctol 17, 283–291 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-012-0919-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-012-0919-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation