Search

Aim: Endoscopic treatment for rectal cancer, such as endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection, causes inflammation, oedema and fibrosis in the surrounding tissue. However, little is known about the effect of these endoscopic therapies on salvage laparoscopic rectal surgery. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to analyse the effect of preceding endoscopic treatment on the outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Method: We analysed 53 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer with clinical Tis or T1 at our department between May 2011 and June 2019. Data from 30 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery after preceding endoscopic treatment (Group E + S) were compared with those of 23 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery alone (Group S). Results: There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to preoperative details. The mean operative time tended to be longer in Group E + S, and the volume of intra‐operative blood loss was greater in Group E + S than in Group S (median 63 ml vs 10 ml, P = 0.049). There were no significant differences between the groups in other surgical parameters or oncological outcomes. Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery after endoscopic treatment for rectal cancer may be difficult due to an increased risk of intra‐operative bleeding. Long‐term prognosis after surgery was not affected by preceding endoscopic treatment in rectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Pelvic lymphocele is a common complication that develops after pelvic lymph node dissection. The incidence of pelvic lymphocele formation has been reported to be 10.5–51% after gynaecological or urological procedures. However, no evidence has been reported thus far with regard to the development of pelvic lymphocele following lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) for low rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of and risk factors for lymphocele formation after LPND for low rectal cancer and to examine its clinical management. Method: We retrospectively analysed the incidence of and risk factors for pelvic lymphocele formation after LPND for rectal cancer in our hospital between January 2012 and December 2017. We also compared the size of the lymphocele between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients by using CT volumetry and examined its clinical management. Results: A total of 30 out of 98 patients (30.8%) developed pelvic lymphocele after rectal LPND. The number of resected nodes was significantly higher in patients with a pelvic lymphocele (P < 0.01). The median volume was significantly higher in patients with symptomatic pelvic lymphocele (P = 0.011). Among the nine symptomatic patients, two underwent CT‐guided drainage, one underwent transurethral ureteral stent placement and one underwent laparoscopic marsupialization. Conclusion: It is essential to keep in mind the possibility of pelvic lymphocele formation during follow‐up of patients who undergo LPND, and to consider an appropriate treatment when these patients are symptomatic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]