4.5 Article

Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Proctectomy for Rectal Adenocarcinoma

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 22, Issue 8, Pages 1412-1417

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-018-3751-8

Keywords

Rectal cancer; MIS; Proctectomy; Rectal adenocatrinoma; Minimally invasive surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Long-term oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for rectal adenocarcinoma compared to open surgery continue to be debated. We aimed to review our high-volume single-institution outcomes in MIS rectal cancer surgery. Methods A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was completed of all consecutive adult patients with rectal adenocarcinoma treated firm January 2005 through December 2011. Stage IV or recurrent disease was excluded. Demographics and operative and pathologic details were reviewed and reported. Primary endpoints include survival and recurrence. Results A total of 324 patients were included and median follow-up was 54 months (IQR = 37.0, 78.8). The mean age was 58.2 +/- 14.1 years. Tumors were in the upper rectum in 111 patients, mid-rectum in 113 patients, and lower rectum in 100 patients. Stage III disease was most common (49.4%). Overall conversion to open procedure rate was 13.9%. The circumferential radial margin was positive in only 1 patient (0.3%) and the mean lymph node yield was 24.7 +/- 17.2. Cancer recurred in 42 patients (13%), 10 (2.5%) patients developed local recurrence, 32 (9.8%) developed distant metastasis, and 2 (0.6%) patients had both. The 5-year overall survival for stage 0, 1, 2, and 3 disease is 96, 91, 80, and 77%, respectively (p = 0.015). Conclusion In carefully selected rectal cancer patients treated with MIS, long-term outcomes of survival and recurrence appear to compare favorably to previously published series.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available