Log in

Manometric assessment of anorectal function after transanal total mesorectal excision

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is common following surgery for mid and low rectal cancer. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) involves intraoperative stretching of the anal sphincter while an anal single port is placed, which can potentially further disturb anorectal function. The aim of our study was to systematically assess anal function after TaTME using anorectal manometry and questionnaires.

Methods

Patients who had TaTME for rectal cancer at our institution were prospectively assessed by means of anorectal manometry and the standard LARS score. The primary endpoint was the resting pressure to assess internal sphincter damage and the secondary endpoints were squeeze pressure to assess external anal sphincter and analysis of correlation between LARS score and these two manometry parameters. Patients who had laparoscopic TME (LaTME) served as a control group.

Results

Out of 81 patients invited to participate 48 accepted. There were 36 in theTaTMEgroup, and 12 in the LaTMEgroup. The mean follow-up time from the index operation date to the assessment date was 41.34 months (± SD 24.834). The mean resting pressure did not differ significantly between the groups (36.44 mmHg ± 18.514 and 36.58 mmHg ± 13.318 in the TaTME and LaTME groups, respectively, p = 0.981). The mean squeeze pressure was also comparable (125.00 mmHg ± 66.141 and 111.83 mmHg ± 51.111 in the TaTME and LaTME groups, respectively, p = 0.533). The mean LARS score was comparable and showed comparable results. The analysis of correlation between LARS score and manometry parameters showed no significant associations between resting or squeeze pressure and L:ARS score.

Conclusions

Following TME surgery, the resting and squeeze pressures of the anal sphincter measured by manometry were generally decreased, with no differences between the transanal and laparoscopic approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bulow S, Harling H, Iversen LH, Ladelund S (2010) Improved survival after rectal cancer in Denmark. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctol G B Irel 12(7 Online):e37–e42

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Heald RJ (1979) A new approach to rectal cancer. Br J Hosp Med 22(3):277–281

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jeong S-Y, Park JW, Nam BH, Kim S, Kang S-B, Lim S-B et al (2014) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 15(7):767–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Haglind E (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 373(2):194

    Google Scholar 

  5. Deijen CL, Velthuis S, Tsai A, Mavroveli S, de Lange-de Klerk ESM, Sietses C et al (2016) COLOR III: a multicentre randomised clinical trial comparing transanal TME versus laparoscopic TME for mid and low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 30(8):3210–3215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Denost Q, Quintane L, Buscail E, Martenot M, Laurent C, Rullier E (2013) Short- and longterm impact of body mass index on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctol G B Irel 15(4):463–469

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Perdawood SK, Thinggaard BS, Bjoern MX (2018) Effect of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: comparison of short-term outcomes with laparoscopic and open surgeries. Surg Endosc 32(5):2312–2321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bjorn MX, Perdawood SK (2015) Transanal total mesorectal excision—a systematic review. Dan Med J 62(7):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  9. Emile SH, de Lacy FB, Keller DS, Martin-Perez B, Alrawi S, Lacy AM et al (2018) Evolution of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: from top to bottom. World J Gastrointest Surg 10(3):28–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Emmertsen KJ, Laurberg S (2012) Low anterior resection syndrome score: development and validation of a symptom-based scoring system for bowel dysfunction after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 255(5):922–928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Juul T, Battersby NJ, Christensen P, Janjua AZ, Branagan G, Laurberg S et al (2015) Validation of the English translation of the low anterior resection syndrome score. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctol G B Irel 17(10):908–916

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bjoern MX, Nielsen S, Perdawood SK (2019) Quality of life after surgery for rectal cancer: a comparison of functional outcomes after transanal and laparoscopic approaches. J Gastrointest Surg 23(8):1623–1630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Harling H, Nickelsen T (2005) The Danish colorectal cancer database. Ugeskr Laeger 167(44):4187–4189

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Badic B, Joumond A, Thereaux J, Gancel CH, Bail JP (2018) Long-term functional and oncological results after sphincter-saving resection for rectal cancer—cohort study. Int J Surg Lond Engl 52:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Coco C, Valentini V, Manno A, Rizzo G, Gambacorta MA, Mattana C et al (2007) Functional results after radiochemotherapy and total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 22(8):903–910

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. De Nardi P, Testoni SGG, Corsetti M, Andreoletti H, Giollo P, Passaretti S et al (2017) Manometric evaluation of anorectal function in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Dig Liver Dis Off J Ital Soc Gastroenterol Ital Assoc Study Liver 49(1):91–97

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ihnat P, Slivova I, Tulinsky L, Ihnat Rudinska L, Maca J, Penka I (2018) Anorectal dysfunction after laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection for rectal cancer with and without radiotherapy (manometry study). J Surg Oncol 117(4):710–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kupsch J, Jackisch T, Matzel KE, Zimmer J, Schreiber A, Sims A et al (2018) Outcome of bowel function following anterior resection for rectal cancer-an analysis using the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score. Int J Colorectal Dis 33(6):787–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Canda AE, Terzi C, Gorken IB, Oztop I, Sokmen S, Fuzun M (2010) Effects of preoperative chemoradiotherapy on anal sphincter functions and quality of life in rectal cancer patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 25(2):197–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dulskas A, Samalavicius NE (2016) Usefulness of anorectal manometry for diagnosing continence problems after a low anterior resection. Ann Coloproctology 32(3):101–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Biviano I, Balla A, Badiali D, Quaresima S, D’Ambrosio G, Lezoche E et al (2017) Anal function after endoluminal locoregional resection by transanal endoscopic microsurgery and radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctol G B Irel 19(6):O177–O185

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Efthimiadis C, Basdanis G, Zatagias A, Tzeveleki I, Kosmidis C, Karamanlis E et al (2004) Manometric and clinical evaluation of patients after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol 8(Suppl 1):s205–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. X. Bjoern.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Patients were fully informed about the study and gave an informed consent to participate.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bjoern, M.X., Perdawood, S.K. Manometric assessment of anorectal function after transanal total mesorectal excision. Tech Coloproctol 24, 231–236 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02147-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02147-3

Keywords

Navigation