Clinical efficacy of intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer compared with abdominoperineal resection: a single-center retrospective study

Purpose In recent years, intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been increasingly used to replace abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancer. This study was to compare the clinical efficacy of ISR and APR. Methods Between 2012 and 2018, 74 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer underwent ISR and APR in our medical centre. The outcomes were retrospectively studied and compared. Results A total of 43 patients underwent ISR and 31 underwent APR were included in the study. No significant differences were found between two groups in gender, age, BMI and ASA score. ISR group showed shorter operative time (P = 0.02) and less blood loss (P = 0.001). Hospital stays, time to soft diet, and postoperative thirty-day complications were not significantly different between the two groups. As for the long-term outcomes, the survival and recurrence rate were similar between two groups. Moreover, LARS score and Wexner score showed the anal function after ISR was generally satisfactory. Conclusion This study suggested that ISR may provide a feasible alternative to APR, with superior short-term outcomes, similar oncological outcomes and satisfactory postoperative anal function.