Comparative efficacy analysis of laparoscopic-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision vs laparoscopic transanal mesorectal excision for low-lying rectal cancer

BACKGROUND With the continuous development of laparoscopic techniques in recent years,laparoscopic total mesorectal excision(LapTME)and laparoscopic-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision(TaTME)have gradually become important surgical techniques for treating low-lying rectal cancer(LRC).However,there is still controversy over the efficacy and safety of these two surgical modalities in LRC treatment.AIM To compare the efficacy of LapTME vs TaTME in patients with LRC.METHODS Ninety-four patients with LRC who visited and were treated at the Affiliated Hengyang Hospital of Hunan Normal University&Hengyang Central Hospital between December 2022 and March 2024 were selected and divided into the LapTME(n=44)and TaTME(n=50)groups.Clinical operation indexes,postoperative recovery indicators,and postoperative complications were recorded.The anal resting pressure(ARP),anal maximum systolic pressure(MSP),and maximum tolerated volume(MTV)of the anal canal were also measured.The intestinal function of patients was evaluated by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center(MSKCC)bowel function questionnaire.Serum norepinephrine(NE),adrenaline(AD),and cortisol(Cor)levels were measured.The Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30(QLQC30)was used for quality of life assessment.RESULTS Compared with the LapTME group,the surgery time in the TaTME group was longer;intraoperative blood loss was low;time of anal exhaust,first postoperative ambulation,intestinal recovery,and hospital stay were shorter;and the distal incisal margin and specimen lengths were longer.The TaTME group also showed higher ARP,MSP,and MTV values and higher MSKCC and QLQ-C30 scores than the LapTME group 3 months postoperatively.Cor,AD,and NE levels were lower in the TaTME group than those in the LapTME group during recovery.CONCLUSION We demonstrated that TaTME better improved anal function,reduced postoperative stress,and accelerated postoperative recovery and,hence,was safer for patients with LRC.

Comparing short-term outcomes of robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision surgery for rectal cancer in elderly patients

BACKGROUND Da Vinci Robotics-assisted total mesorectal excision(TME)surgery for rectal cancer is becoming more widely used.There is no strong evidence that roboticassisted surgery and laparoscopic surgery have similar outcomes in elderly patients with TME for rectal cancer.AIM To determine the improved oncological outcomes and short-term efficacy of robot-assisted surgery in elderly patients undergoing TME surgery.METHODS A retrospective study of the clinical pathology and follow-up of elderly patients who underwent TME surgery at the Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology at the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine was conducted from March 2020 through September 2023.The patients were divided into a robotassisted group(the R-TME group)and a laparoscopic group(the L-TME group),and the short-term efficacy of the two groups was compared.RESULTS There were 45 elderly patients(≥60 years)in the R-TME group and 50 elderly patients(≥60 years)in the L-TME group.There were no differences in demographics,conversion rates,or postoperative complication rates.The L-TME group had a longer surgical time than the R-TME group[145(125,187.5)vs 180(148.75,206.25)min,P=0.005),and the first postoperative meal time in the L-TME group was longer than that in the R-TME(4 vs 3 d,P=0.048).Among the sex and body mass index(BMI)subgroups,the R-TME group had better out-comes than did the L-TME group in terms of operation time(P=0.042)and intraoperative assessment of bleeding(P=0.042).In the high BMI group,catheter removal occurred earlier in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group(3 vs 4 d,P=0.001),and autonomous voiding function was restored.CONCLUSION The curative effect and short-term efficacy of robot-assisted TME surgery for elderly patients with rectal cancer are similar to those of laparoscopic TME surgery;however,robotic-assisted surgery has better short-term outcomes for individuals with risk factors such as obesity and pelvic stenosis.Optimizing the learning curve can shorten the operation time,reduce the recovery time of gastrointestinal function,and improve the prognosis.

Transanal total mesorectal excision: Myths and reality

Transanal total mesorectal excision(TaTME) is a new and promising approach for the treatment of rectal cancer. Whilst the experience is still limited, there are growing evidences that this approach might overcome the limits of standard low anterior resection. TaTME might help to decrease the conversion rate especially in difficult patients, and to improve the pathological results, while preserving the urogenital function. Evaluation of data from large registries and randomized studies should help to draw firmer conclusions. Beyond these technical considerations, the next challenge seems to be clearly the safe introduction of this approach, motivating the development of dedicated courses.

Low rectal cancer:Sphincter preserving techniques-selection of patients,techniques and outcomes

Low rectal cancer is traditionally treated by abdominoperineal resection. In recent years, several new techniques for the treatment of very low rectal cancer patients aiming to preserve the gastrointestinal continuity and to improve both the oncological as well as the functional outcomes, have been emerged. Literature suggest that when the intersphincteric resection is applied in T1-3 tumors located within 30-35 mm from the anal verge, is technically feasible, safe, with equal oncological outcomes compared to conventional surgery and acceptable quality of life. The Anterior Perineal Plan E for Ultra-low Anterior Resection technique, is not disrupting the sphincters, but carries a high complication rate, while the reports on the oncological and functional outcomes are limited. Transanal Endoscopic Micro Surgery(TEM) and Trans Anal Minimally Invasive Surgery(TAMIS) should represent the treatment of choice for T1 rectal tumors, with specific criteria according to the NCCN guidelines and favorable pathologic features. Alternatively to the standard conventional surgery, neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy followed by TEM or TAMIS seems promising for tumors of a local stage T1sm2-3 or T2. Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision should be performed only when a board approved protocol is available by colorectal surgeons with extensive experience in minimally invasive and transanal endoscopic surgery.

Is laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery equal to open surgery? An evidence based perspective

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery(LCS) is an evolving subject.Recent studies show that LCS can not only offer safe surgery but evidence is growing that this new technique can be superior to classical open procedures.Fewer perioperative complications and faster postoperative recovery are regularly mentioned when studies of LCS are presented.Even though the learning curve of LCS is frequently debated when limitations of laparoscopic surgeries are reviewed,studies show that in experienced hands LCS can be a safe procedure for colorectal cancer treatment.The learning curve however,is associated with high conversion rates and economical aspects such as higher costs and prolonged hospital stay.Nevertheless,laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery(LCCR) offers several advantages such as less co-morbidity and less postoperative pain in comparison with open procedures.Furthermore,the good exposure of the pelvic cavity by laparoscopy and the magnification of anatomical structures seem to facilitate pelvic dissection laparoscopically.Moreover,recent studies describe no difference in safety and oncological radicalness in LCCR compared to the open total mesorectal excision(TME).The oncological adequacy of LCCR still remains unproven today,because long-term results do not yet exist.To date,only a few studies have described the results of laparoscopic TME combined with preoperative adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer.The aim of this review is to examine the various areas of development and controversy of LCCR in comparison to the conventional open approach.

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: Where do we stand?

Large comparative studies and multiple prospective randomized control trials (RCTs) have reported equivalence in short and long-term outcomes between the open and laparoscopic approaches for the surgical treatment of colon cancer which has heralded widespread acceptance for laparoscopic resection of colon cancer. In contrast, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for the treatment of rectal cancer has been welcomed with significantly less enthusiasm. While it is likely that patients with rectal cancer will experience the same benefits of early recovery and decreased postoperative pain from the laparoscopic approach, whether the same oncologic clearance, specifically an adequate TME can be obtained is of concern. The aim of the current study is to review the current level of evidence in the literature on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery with regard to short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes. The data from 8 RCTs, 3 metaanalyses, and 2 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was reviewed. Current data suggests that laparoscopic rectal cancer resection may benefit patients with reduced blood loss, earlier return of bowel function, and shorter hospital length of stay. Concerns that laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery compromises short-term oncologic outcomes including number of lymph nodes retrieved and circumferential resection margin and jeopardizes long-term oncologic outcomes has not conclusively been refuted by the available literature. Laparoscopic rectal cancer resection is feasible but whether or not it compromises short-term or long-term results still needs to be further studied.

Robotic technology: Optimizing the outcomes in rectal cancer?

Minimally invasive rectal resection remains a challenging procedure, even in experienced hands. Technical limitations explain at least in part the reasons of a relatively poor adoption of laparoscopy for rectal resection, in particular for low tumors in a deep and narrow pelvis.Robotics is intended to overcome these limitations.Potentially better short-term outcomes have beenpublished: reduced conversion rates, better functional outcomes, shorter learning curve, reduction of positive margins, better specimen… However, robotic surgery has not yet taken over as the gold standard approach for low anterior resection. Several drawbacks might indeed discourage the most fervent surgeon: the size of the robot, the lack of tactile feedback, the risk and difficulties during multiquadrant surgery, and, of course, costs. Whilst new systems might overcome most of these drawbacks, it seems obvious that the development of robotic surgery is underway. Robotics is not just another interesting technical tool, but more a new concept, which should play a role in the future.

Re-appraisal and consideration of minimally invasive surgery in colorectal cancer

Throughout history,surgeons have been on a quest to refine the surgical treatment options for their patients and to minimize operative trauma.During the last three decades,there have been tremendous advances in the field of minimally invasive colorectal surgery,with an explosion of different technologies and approaches offered to treat well-known diseases.Laparoscopic surgery has been shown to be equal or superior to open surgery.The boundaries of laparoscopy have been pushed further,in the form of single-incision laparoscopy,natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and robotics.This paper critically reviews the pathway of development of minimally invasive surgery,and appraises the different minimally invasive colorectal surgical approaches available to date.

The“terminal line”:a novel sign for the identification of distal mesorectum end during TME for rectal cancer

Background:Although the clinical importance of complete,intact total mesorectal excision(TME)is the widely accepted standard for decreasing local recurrence of rectal cancer,the residual mesorectum still represents a significant component of resection margin involvement.This study aimed to use a visible intraoperative sign to detect the distal mesorectal end to ensure complete inclusion of the mesorectum and avoid unnecessary over-dissection.Methods:The distal mesorectum end was investigated retrospectively through a review of 124 operative videos at the Union Hospital of Fujian Medical University(Fujian,China)and Cleveland Clinic(Ohio,USA)by two independent surgeons who were blinded to each other.Furthermore,28 cadavers and 44 post-operative specimens were prospectively examined by hematoxylin and eosin(H&E)staining and Masson’s staining to validate and confirm the findings of the retrospective part.Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to detect the independent factors that can affect the visualization of the distal mesorectal end.Results:The terminal line(TL)is the distal mesorectal end of the transabdominal and transanal TME(taTME)and appears as a remarkable pearly white fascial structure extending posteriorly from 2 to 10 o’clock.Histopathological examination revealed that the fascia propria of the rectum merges with the presacral fascia at the TL,beyond which the mesorectum ends,with no further downward extension.In the retrospective observation,the TL was seen in 56.6%of transabdominal TME and 56.0%of taTME operations.Surgical approach and tumor distance from the anal verge were the independent variables that directly influenced the detection of the TL(P=0.03 and P=0.01).Conclusion: The TL is a visible sign where the transabdominal TME should end and the taTME should begin. Recognitionof the mesorectal end may impact the certainty of complete mesorectum inclusion. Further clinical trials are needed toconfirm the preliminary findings.

扶正固元汤对腹腔镜辅助肛门全直肠系膜切除直肠癌根治术后患者恢复及生活质量的影响

目的观察扶正固元汤在腹腔镜辅助肛门全直肠系膜切除直肠癌根治术后患者恢复中的应用效果,以期为临床治疗提供有力参考。方法选取2018年6月1日至2023年6月1日南阳医学高等专科学校附属中医院收治的直肠癌患者100例,按照随机数字表法分成两组,每组50例。所有患者均接受腹腔镜辅助肛门全直肠系膜切除直肠癌根治术,其中对照组接受常规西药治疗,研究组在对照组治疗方案的基础上联用扶正固元汤治疗。对比两组胃肠道功能,免疫功能指标[免疫球蛋白A(IgA)、免疫球蛋白G(IgG)、免疫球蛋白M(IgM)、CD3^(+)、CD4^(+)、CD8^(+)],生活质量及并发症发生情况。结果(1)术后第1、2、3个月,研究组出现的胃肠道反应的等级均低于对照组(P<0.05);(2)术后1个月、3个月研究组体液免疫指标IgA、IgG、IgM均明显高于对照组(P<0.05);(3)术后1个月、3个月,研究组的CD3^(+)、CD4^(+)明显高于对照组,CD8^(+)明显低于对照组(P<0.05);(4)随访3个月后,研究组在物质生活、社会功能、心理状态、躯体功能4个方面的评分均明显高于对照组(P<0.05);(5)研究组并发症发生率低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论扶正固元汤在腹腔镜辅助肛门全直肠系膜切除直肠癌根治术后患者恢复中可减轻胃肠道反应,提高患者免疫机能,改善生活质量,降低并发症发生率,临床效果显著。

经肛内镜全直肠系膜切除治疗直肠癌

目的首次报道并介绍经肛内镜对1例合并左侧游走肾的男性直肠癌患者实施全直肠系膜切除(TME)的NOTES手术方法。方法新辅助化疗后施行NOTES手术,手术分两组:腹组经腹腹腔镜辅助分离直肠上端和乙状结肠及其系膜以及肠系膜下血管,肛组游离直肠系膜,术者在PPH肛门镜下横断直肠壁后先完成腹组以上操作,再进行肛组操作,通过自制的腰形直肠镜按照TME原则向上分离直肠系膜直至从骶前间隙进入腹腔,盆底腹膜前部的分离经前腹壁腹腔镜下进行,经肛门直肠镜将直肠和乙状结肠拖出,切断乙状结肠并用吻合器将直肠和乙状结肠吻合。结果手术时间290 min,直肠系膜完整切除并检出25个淋巴结,其中5个直肠下部系膜淋巴结阳性,直肠及其系膜的远切缘阴性,最后病理分期pT3N2,术后患者恢复顺利,第2天开始肠内营养,第5天和第8天分别开始半流质饮食和普通饮食,未发生吻合口漏和感染,第7天后排便功能接近正常。结论自然腔道手术经肛内镜全直肠系膜切除可行而安全,腹腔镜辅助有利于克服精囊腺和游走肾造成的分离困难。

腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除保肛术后生活质量评估

目的对低位直肠癌患者行腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除保肛术(LTME+ASP)后的生活质量进行评估。方法以2001年6月至2004年3月期间在四川大学华西医院直肠癌治疗组行LTME+ASP的125例低位直肠癌患者为研究对象(LTME组),同期103例行开腹全直肠系膜切除保肛术(OTME+ASP)的患者作为对照(OTME组),采用国际标准问卷QLQ-C30和QLQ-CR38,分别于术后3～6个月、12～18个月、>24个月3个时段进行前瞻性调查。结果LTME组的躯体功能、性功能及性快感分别在第1、2、3时段显著优于OTME组。两组女性性障碍差异无统计学意义,而LTME组在第1、2时段的排尿障碍和第2时段的男性性障碍均显著轻于OTME组。从第1时段到第2时段,两组的角色功能、认知功能、社会功能、未来期望、整体印象、疲乏、恶心呕吐、疼痛、失眠、厌食、腹泻、化疗副反应、排便障碍、消瘦以及LTME组的性功能、排尿障碍和男性性障碍均显著改善;而两组的性快感以及OTME组的性功能则在第3时段显著改善。结论LTME+ASP治疗低位直肠癌可获得优于开腹手术的术后生活质量,其优势主要体现在躯体功能、排尿障碍、性功能、性快感、男性性障碍等方面,而以上优势主要存在于术后中、短期;LTME组和OTME组术后患者的生活质量均随时间延长趋于好转,术后1年最为显著,LTME组术后的排尿障碍和性功能比OTME组术后恢复快。

低位/超低位直肠癌行腹腔镜下经肛拖出式全直肠系膜切除联合应用双吻合器的临床意义

目的:探讨低位/超低位直肠癌患者接受腹腔镜下经肛门拖出全直肠系膜切除结合双吻合器手术的临床意义。方法:选择于2010年1月至2012年11月间就诊于吉林大学第二医院普通外科疾病诊疗中心的46例低位/超低位直肠癌患者,施行腹腔镜经肛门拖出全直肠系膜切除结合应用双吻合器手术。回顾性分析手术成功率、术后并发症及远期治疗效果。结果:46例手术均获成功,无中转开腹,手术时间平均167 min,出血量平均42 mL。术后切缘病理检查均未见癌细胞,无手术死亡病例,无吻合口瘘及输尿管损伤等严重并发症,平均随访12.6个月,无局部或吻合口复发、戳卡种植转移。结论:施行低位/超低位直肠癌腹腔镜辅助下经肛门拖出全直肠系膜切除结合应用双吻合器具有安全可行的优点,并且能够保证足够的肿瘤远端切缘。

改良无辅助切口完全腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术治疗直肠癌的疗效

目的探讨改良无辅助切口完全腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术治疗直肠癌的疗效。方法回顾分析我院2012年2月～2016年2月52例直肠癌,分别施行无辅助切口完全腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术(无辅助切口组,n=28)或腹腔镜辅助切口全直肠系膜切除术(辅助切口组,n=24),无辅助切口组术式改良之处在于将吻合器钉座自肛门放入肿瘤近端,自结肠壁戳孔引出钉座拉杆,腹腔镜下用切割闭合器离断钉座与肿瘤之间结肠,带瘤肠管经肛门拖出、切除,残端缝合后还纳,自肛门进入吻合器,腹腔镜下行结肠、直肠(肛管)吻合。比较2组术中、术后情况。结果无辅助切口组手术时间(198. 5±40. 6)min,明显短于辅助切口组(230. 4±35. 8) min(t=2. 981,P=0. 004);无辅助切口组出血量(120. 4±32. 1) ml,明显少于辅助切口组(150. 6±40. 8) ml(t=2. 986,P=0. 004);无辅助切口组住院时间(8. 4±1. 2) d,明显短于辅助切口组(10. 5±1. 2) d (t=5. 399,P=0. 000)。2组随访12个月,各1例发生淋巴结转移,余患者未见局部复发与远处转移。结论改良无辅助切口完全腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术治疗直肠癌可行,并发症发生率低,安全性高,值得推广。

运用腹腔镜技术根治性切除直肠恶性肿瘤的临床应用研究

目的探讨运用腹腔镜外科技术根治性切除直肠恶性肿瘤的可行性与临床意义。方法回顾性分析运用腹腔镜技术根治性切除57例直肠肿瘤的手术方式与临床资料,其中高位直肠癌8例,中位直肠癌19例,低位直肠癌21例,肛管癌9例。结果55例在全腹腔镜或其辅助下完成根治性切除术,2例中转开腹手术;手术时间平均(136±25)min,平均出血量(85±38)mL;术后无伤口感染、腹腔出血、吻合口漏、狭窄;术后病理组织学检查,肿瘤标本切除长度(26.35±13.26)cm,切除淋巴结数目(12.35±9.67)个;随访4￣36个月,2例术后14个月、18个月腹腔广泛转移死亡。结论运用腹腔镜外科技术根治性切除直肠癌具有创伤小、恢复快,且在理论和技术上是安全可行的,近期疗效可,值得推广。

腹腔镜与开腹直肠癌根治术的对照研究

目的:评价腹腔镜直肠癌根治术的临床应用价值及疗效。方法:回顾分析77例直肠癌患者的临床资料,其中35例行腹腔镜直肠癌根治术,42例行开腹直肠癌根治术。对比分析两组患者术中失血量、手术时间、术后恢复情况、术后并发症、直肠全系膜切除情况、淋巴结清除数量、保肛率、术后排尿功能等。结果:77例直肠癌根治术均获成功,腹腔镜组无一例中转开腹。术中出血量、术后下床活动时间、胃肠功能恢复时间、直肠系膜切除质量腹腔镜组显著优于开腹组;手术时间腹腔镜组长于开腹组;保肛率、淋巴结清除数量、术后并发症发生率及术后排尿功能两组差异无统计学意义。结论:腹腔镜直肠癌根治术微创、安全、有效,患者术后下床活动时间、胃肠功能恢复、住院时间及术中失血量、直肠系膜切除质量均优于开腹手术。

头侧中间入路的腹腔镜直肠癌根治术:保留左结肠动脉的临床意义

目的:研究头侧中间入路在保留左结肠动脉(left colic artery,LCA)腹腔镜直肠癌根治术的安全性、可行性、肿瘤根治性,术后短期疗效以及手术技术上的优势。方法:回顾性分析2016年7月至12月32例头侧中间入路保留LCA的腹腔镜直肠癌根治术病史资料,并与同期29例传统中间入路保留LCA的腹腔镜直肠癌根治术进行比较。结果:本研究所有病人均成功接受手术,无严重并发症和死亡,无中转开腹手术。头侧中间入路组手术时间(103.6±16.9)min,淋巴结清扫时间(17.2±2.7)min,术中出血(95.3±21.5)m L和总淋巴结清扫数(17.1±7.2)枚,与传统中间入路组比较均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。头侧中间入路组肠系膜下动脉根部第253组淋巴结清扫数(3.3±1.2)枚,与传统中间入路的(1.9±1.2)枚相比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组在术后并发症、术后恢复排气时间以及住院时间方面亦无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论:头侧中间入路用于保留LCA腹腔镜直肠癌根治术安全可行。在不延长手术时间的基础上,达到较彻底的肠系膜下动脉根部第253组淋巴结清扫。尚需更多病例以及进一步的临床研究加以证实。

腹腔镜下全直肠系膜切除术后尿管拔除时机和方法探讨

目的:探讨腹腔镜下全直肠系膜切除术后尿管拔除的时机和方法。方法:将102例腹腔镜下全直肠系膜切除术后直肠癌患者随机分为实验组和对照组,每组各51例。实验组术后第4天夹闭尿管,膀胱充盈时拔除尿管,患者自行排尿。对照组术后第4天开始训练膀胱功能,夹闭尿管3~4 h放尿1次,第7~10天患者有尿意感后拔除尿管,患者自行排尿。结果:两组相比较,实验组尿路感染率明显降低,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.014),及早拔除尿管可以减轻下尿路不适症状(P=0.005),而两组患者急性尿潴留需要再次插尿管发生率和住院天数无明显差异(P>0.05)。结论:腹腔镜下全直肠系膜切除术后及早拔除尿管可减轻下尿路不适症状,降低患者尿路感染发生率,拔管前不需要训练膀胱功能,直接拔除尿管,不增加尿潴留和再次插管率。

直肠癌保肛术后老年患者焦虑及抑郁与生存质量的相关性

目的了解直肠癌保肛术后老年患者焦虑及抑郁与生存质量现状,并探讨其相关性。方法采用自行设计的患者一般资料调查问卷、医院综合焦虑抑郁量表(hospital anxiety and depression scale,HADS)和SF-36健康调查量表(the MOS 36 items short form health survey,SF-36)对60例直肠癌保肛术后老年患者进行调查。患者焦虑及抑郁与生活质量的相关性采用Pearson相关分析。结果直肠癌保肛术后老年患者SF-36总分为(64.20±11.76)分;其焦虑阳性者占36.67%,抑郁阳性者占30.00%。直肠癌保肛术后老年患者焦虑及抑郁与生存质量均呈负相关(r值分别为-0.312和-0.495,均P<0.05)。结论护理人员应积极给予直肠癌保肛术后老年患者心理情感支持,指导其采用放松疗法等措施,以减轻患者焦虑及抑郁情绪,从而提高其生存质量。

经肛门联合腹腔镜根治性全直肠系膜切除术治疗直肠癌的可行性和安全性

目的:探讨经肛门联合腹腔镜根治性全直肠系膜切除术治疗直肠癌的可行性和安全性。方法:选取2016年1月至2017年12月在广东省梅州市人民医院行根治性全直肠系膜切除术治疗的直肠癌患者60例为研究对象,按信封法随机分为研究组(n=30)和对照组(n=30)。对照组常规行腹腔镜根治性全直肠系膜切除术治疗,研究组行经肛门联合腹腔镜根治性全直肠系膜切除术治疗。比较两组手术情况、淋巴结清扫枚数、病理标本下切缘的距离以及并发症发生率等。结果:两组手术时间、术后下床时间、留置尿管时间、术后1 d视觉模拟评分(VAS)、淋巴结清扫枚数、病理标本下切缘距离均无明显差异(均P>0.05)。与对照组比较,研究组术中出血量增加,术后胃肠道功能恢复时间及术后住院时间缩短(均P<0.05)。两组术后切口感染和肺部感染等并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:直肠癌经肛门联合腹腔镜根治性全直肠系膜切除术治疗可行性和安全性良好,值得临床推广。