[The surgical tratment of the subperitoneal rectal cancer].

Aim: To value the results of "open" surgery with sphincter preservation, TME nerve-sparing, fast-track, without a protective stoma in a consecutive series of patients with subperitoneal rectal cancer (s.p.r.c.).
Materials and Methods: In January 1989, we started a prospective, non-randomized study designed to assess when a primary derivative stoma was warranted in a series of consecutive patients electively treated with open low and ultralow AR. The inclusion criteria were: all patients with middle and low rectal cancer who underwent elective low and ultralow AR, including those treated with neoadjuvant therapy. The exclusion criteria were: urgent surgery, incomplete rings in the stapler, a positive hydropneumatic test, preoperative involvement of the external sphincter and/or surrounding structures by the tumor as demonstrated by CT-scan and endorectal MR and/or transrectal ultrasound. Anastomoses between 7 cm and 4 cm from the pectinate line were defined as low colo-rectal anastomoses, while anastomoses lower than 4 cm from the pectinate line were defined as ultralow anastomoses. A fistula or anastomotic dehiscence was suspected when pelvic and/or peritoneal pain, fever, leucocytosis, fecaloid liquid in the drainage and/or perianal erythematosus swelling were present. An anastomotic leak was confirmed by means of angio-CT and/or endoscopy and/or contrast enema depending on the procedure available most promptly. Signs of peritoneal reaction were considered to be indicative of a major dehiscence, regardless of the diameter of the fistula; when diagnosed, a transverse colostomy was immediately performed. Clinically less serious cases were defined as minor dehiscences, for which a "wait and see" strategy or a transcutaneous CT or ultrasound guided drainage of an abscess were used. Sixty-five patients were treated according to a fast-track postoperative protocol.
Results: Between 1998 and 2007, 89 patients with s.p.r.c. were treated according to a prospective protocol. One hundred and nineteen patients (69.6%) underwent low anastomoses and 52 patients (30.4%) underwent ultra low anastomoses. Forty-two (24.6%) were treated with traditional AR, 129 (75.4%) with AR and nerve-sparing TME. Forty-six (26.9%) patients underwent neoadjuvant therapy. One hundred and two patients underwent a mechanical end-to-end anastomosis, 67 a double stapled anastomosis, and 2 a colo-anal anastomosis at the pectinate line performed according to our technique. All 6 patients with major dehiscences underwent a protective colostomy within hours of the onset of clinical symptoms immediately after the radiologically- or endoscopically-confirmed diagnosis. The 7 minor dehiscences were successfully treated with conservative therapy (antibiotic and enteral feeding) using an out-patient regimen. Two (28.6%) required percutaneous drainage: one pelvic CT-guided drainage and the other (an ultralow dehiscence) perineal drainage. The 72.6% of the patients survived at 5-years follow-up. The incidence of local recurrences in 2-years followup was 3.2% (on 124 patients). We had no deaths in patients treated with fast-track protocol.
Conclusion: Open, TME nerve-sparing A.R. with selective use of neoadjuvant therapy, can be successfully performed without a protective stoma in more than 80% of the patients. Fast-track protocol seems to increase quality of p.o. period and decrease hospital stay