Laparoscopic Versus Open Intersphincteric Resection and Coloanal Anastomosis for Low Rectal Cancer Intermediate-Term Oncologic Outcomes

Objective: To compare the surgical outcome and intermediate oncological outcomes for laparoscopic versus open intersphincteric resection (ISR). Background: Intersphincteric resection has been proposed as an alternative to abdominoperineal resection for selected low rectal cancer cases, but the oncological adequacy of laparoscopic ISR has not been established. Methods: A total of 210 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer who underwent ISR between 1997 and 2009 in 2 institutions were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were classified into an open surgery (OS, n = 80) group and a laparoscopy (LAP, n = 130) group. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival. Results: Themajor complication rates were similar in the LAP and OS groups (5.4% vs 3.8%, respectively; P = 0.428). However, the LAP group had a shorter hospital stay and time to bowel movement compared with the OS group. In the LAP group, operating time was 16 minutes shorter (P = 0.230) and intraoperative blood loss was less (P = 0.002). Median follow-up was 34 months (interquartile range: 20.0-42.5 months). The local recurrence rates were similar in the 2 groups (LAP, 2.6% vs OS, 7.7%; P = 0.184). The combined 3-year disease-free survival for all stages was 82.1% (95% CI: 73.7-90.2%) in the LAP group and 77.0% (95% CI: 66.9%-86.9%) in the OS group (P = 0.523). Conclusions: Laparoscopic ISR can be performed safely and offers a minimally invasive sphincter-sparing alternative. The oncological adequacy of laparoscopic ISR requires long-term follow-up data, but the intermediate-term outcomes seem equivalent to those achieved with OS.