Search PubMedSearch

subject

Proctectomy

Proctectomy: explore 2 source-linked works published from 2026 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: pubmed. Collection updated 2026-09-17. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

Minimally invasive versus open abdominoperineal resection and the risk of postoperative perineal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of minimally invasive surgery on the risk of postoperative perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection (APR) or extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) remains uncertain. This study compares perineal hernia rates and perioperative outcomes between minimally invasive and open approaches. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched through June 2026. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. A Bayesian meta-analysis was additionally performed for the primary outcome. RESULTS: Four comparative observational studies involving 763 patients were included; 249 underwent minimally invasive APR/ELAPE, and 514 underwent open APR/ELAPE. Postoperative perineal hernia was significantly more frequent following minimally invasive surgery (OR 4.13; 95% CI 2.24-7.61; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the minimally invasive group (MD&#x2009;-&#x2009;156.5 mL; 95% CI&#x2009;-&#x2009;298.4 to -&#x2009;14.5; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.03), as was operative time (MD&#x2009;-&#x2009;41.7&#xa0;min; 95% CI&#x2009;-&#x2009;60.8 to -&#x2009;22.5; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01). No significant differences were observed in hospital stay (MD&#x2009;-&#x2009;2.5 days; 95% CI&#x2009;-&#x2009;5.4 to 0.4; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.09) or 30-day readmission rates (OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.82-2.42; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.209). Bayesian analysis yielded a posterior mean OR of 4.04 (95% CrI 1.96-8.36), corresponding to a 99.9% posterior probability that minimally invasive surgery increases the risk of postoperative perineal hernia. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive APR/ELAPE was associated with an increased risk of postoperative perineal hernia compared with the open approach. Strategies to reduce this complication while preserving the benefits of minimally invasive surgery warrant further investigation.

Humans

Intersphincteric resection versus abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical approach for lower rectal cancer (LRC) remains debated, particularly between intersphincteric resection (ISR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR). While ISR offers potential sphincter preservation, its oncological efficacy compared to APR is unclear. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to compare clinical and oncological outcomes of ISR versus APR in LRC patients. On December 8, 2024, a comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science identified 24 retrospective studies involving 4502 patients. Key outcomes analyzed included positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs), local recurrence (LR), length of hospital stay (LOS), early postoperative complications, and survival. RESULTS: Twenty-four retrospective studies involving 4502 patients (ISR: 2266 (50.3%) and APR: 1558 (34.6%)) met the eligibility criteria. ISR was associated with significantly lower rates of positive CRM (risk ratio (RR): 0.41, p&#x202f;<&#x202f;0.001), decreased early postoperative complications (RR: 0.76, p&#x202f;<&#x202f;0.001), lower LR (RR: 0.63, p&#x202f;=&#x202f;0.0038), and improvement in five-year overall survival (5YOS) (hazard ratio (HR)&#x202f;=&#x202f;0.42, p&#x202f;<&#x202f;0.001) and five-year disease-free survival (5YDFS) (HR&#x202f;=&#x202f;0.59, p&#x202f;<&#x202f;0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ISR demonstrates several advantages over APR in selected LRC patients, including lower rates of positive CRM, fewer early postoperative complications, reduced LR, greater LN harvest, shorter LOS, and improved long-term survival outcomes (5YOS and 5YDFS). Therefore, ISR can be considered a safe and effective alternative to APR in appropriately chosen patients, with careful patient selection and surgical expertise remaining essential.

Humans
Compare source metadata on this page

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.