• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • MIS Fellows Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • Search
    • Search the SAGES Site
    • Guidelines Search
    • Video Search
    • Search Images
    • Search Abstracts
  • OWLS/FLS
  • Login
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Comparison of Postoperative Functions Between Laparoscopic ISR and Open ISR in Very Low Rectal Cancer

Comparison of Postoperative Functions Between Laparoscopic ISR and Open ISR in Very Low Rectal Cancer

MASAAKI ITO, MD PhD, NORIO SAITO, MD PhD, YUSUKE NISHIZAWA, MD PhD, MASANORI SUGITO, MD PhD, AKIHIRO KOBAYASHI, MD PhD. National Cancer Center Hospital East

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the short-term results and postoperative functional outcomes between laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (Lap ISR) and open intersphincteric resection (Open ISR) for very low rectal cancer.
Methods: We performed a case controlled pair-matched study comparing 48 patients who had undergone either Lap ISR or Open ISR. Our former report showed that three significant clinical factors, such as male, total resection of the internal anal sphincter and performance of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT), were associated with poor anal function after ISR. Therefore patients in this study were matched by the factors. Our indications for ISR were tumor edge 5 cm above the anal verge or 3 cm above the dentate line, and Lap ISR was performed for the patients with rectal cancer of clinical stage1. We compared intra- or post-operative clinical results, and postoperative urinary or anal functions between two groups.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences in clinical backgrounds such as age, gender, tumor site, preoperative CRT and extent of excision of the anal sphincter muscle among two groups. Median operative time was 326 min in Lap ISR group and 328 min in Open ISR group. Blood loss in Lap ISR was less than one in open ISR, and the difference was statistically significant ( 350ml vs 911ml, p<0.01). We had no postoperative reoperation in both groups. The rates of anastomotic leakage were found in 13% of both groups. R0 operation was achieved in all patients in both groups. Urinary dysfunction as early complications after ISR was found 4% in Lap ISR and 21% in Open ISR (p=0.08). Fecal incontinence score was 7 points in Lap ISR and 11 points in Open ISR, and the difference was statistically significant (p=0.03).
Conclusion: We could see the anatomical structures at the bottom of the pelvis clearly by using laparoscope when performing the intersphincteric dissection. The advantage lead the superiority in postoperative anal function in patients who had been performed by Lap ISR compared with open procedures.


Session: SS05
Program Number: S030

119


  • Foundation
  • SAGES.TV
  • MyCME
  • Educational Activities

Copyright © 2025 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons