Multivisceral resection for advanced rectal cancer: Outcomes and experience at a single institution

Benjamin P. Crawshaw, Knut M. Augestad, Deborah S. Keller, Tamar Nobel, Brian Swendseid, Bradley J. Champagne, Sharon L. Stein, Conor P. Delaney, Harry L. Reynolds

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

16 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background Multivisceral resection is often required in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancers. Such resections are relatively rare and oncologic outcomes, especially when sphincter preservation is performed, are not fully demonstrated. Methods A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent multivisceral resection for locally advanced rectal cancer with and without sphincter preservation. Results Sixty-one patients underwent multivisceral resection for rectal cancer from 2005 to 2013 with a median follow-up of 27.8 months. Five-year overall and disease-free survival were 49.2% and 45.3%, respectively. Thirty-four patients (55.7%) had sphincter-sparing operations with primary coloanal anastomosis and temporary stoma. There was no significant difference in overall or disease-free survival, or recurrence with sphincter preservation compared with those with permanent stoma. Conclusions Multivisceral resection for locally advanced rectal cancer has acceptable oncologic and clinical outcomes. Sphincter preservation and subsequent reestablishment of gastrointestinal continuity does not impact oncologic outcomes and should be considered in many patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)526-531
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican journal of surgery
Volume209
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords

  • Colorectal cancer
  • Multivisceral resection
  • Pelvic exenteration
  • Rectal cancer

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Multivisceral resection for advanced rectal cancer: Outcomes and experience at a single institution'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this