• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Fri, 22.11.24

Search results


August 2011
D. Rosin, A. Lebedyev, D. Urban, D. Aderka, O. Zmora, M. Khaikin, A. Hoffman, M. Shabtai and A. Ayalon

Background: The treatment of rectal cancer has changed significantly over the last few decades. Advanced surgical techniques have led to an increase in the rate of sphincter-preserving operations, even for low rectal tumors. This was facilitated by preoperative oncologic treatment and the use of chemoradiation to downstage the tumor before resection. The introduction of total mesorectal excision further improved the oncologic outcome and became the standard of care. The use of laparoscopy for rectal resection is the most recent addition to this series of improvements, but in contrast to the use of laparoscopy in colon cancer its role is not yet well defined.

Objectives: To present our experience with laparoscopic surgery for upper and lower rectal tumors.

Methods: A database was used to prospectively collect all data on laparoscopic rectal surgery in our department since we started performing these procedures in 1997. Follow-up data were collected from outpatient clinic visits, oncology files and telephone interviews. Updated survival data were retrieved from the national census.

Results: Of 750 laparoscopic colorectal procedures performed over a 13 year period, 67 were for rectal cancer. Of these, 29 were resections for tumors in the upper rectum (1115 cm from the anal verge) and 38 for tumors at 10 cm or below. Surgery was performed in 24 patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. There were 54 sphincter-preserving operations and 13 abdominoperineal resections. The mean operative time was 283 minutes. Conversion to an open procedure was required in 22% of the cases. Anastomotic leaks occurred in 17% of cases. Postoperative mortality was 4.5%. Long-term follow-up was available for 77% of the group, for a mean period of 42 months. Local recurrence was diagnosed in 4.5% of the patients and overall 5 year survival was 68%.

Conclusions: Laparoscopic rectal resection is a demanding procedure. However, laparoscopy may become the preferred approach since it is a minimally invasive procedure and has an acceptable oncologic outcome that is comparable to the open approach. This conclusion, however, needs further validation.
 

May 2010
A. Stepansky, A. Halevy and Y. Ziv

Background: An accurate preoperative definition of tumor and lymph node status is needed for reaching the correct decision regarding rectal cancer treatment. Transrectal ultrasonography is the most commonly used diagnostic modality for the local staging of rectal cancer.

Objectives: To determine the accuracy of TRUS[1] in the staging of rectal cancer.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on 95 patients evaluated by TRUS. The rectum was subdivided into two parts (lower and upper).

Results: Sixty patients underwent radical surgery. Of these, 34 received no preoperative chemo-irradiation owing to µT1, µT2 tumor or the patient’s choice (neo-adjuvant treatment was suggested to patients with adenocarcinoma that proved to be µT3). The overall accuracy rate was 80% for T stage. Overstaging was found in 13.3% and understaging in 6.7%.The N-stage was correctly assessed in 70%. The overall accuracy rate for tumors was 73.9% in the lower part and 90.9% in the upper. A trend towards a lower accuracy rate for low-lying tumors compared to high-located rectal tumors was found (P = 0.532), which did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusions: TRUS gave better results for T1 and T3 stage rectal tumors but was inaccurate for stage T2, indicating the possible need for local excision in order to base the final treatment for T2 tumors on pathologic staging.

[1] TRUS = transrectal ultrasonography
 

August 2001
Dan Bar-Zohar, MD, Yoram Kluger and Moshe Michowitz, MD, MSc,
Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel