Open Access

CT pelvimetry and clinicopathological parameters in evaluation of the technical difficulties in performing open rectal surgery for mid-low rectal cancer

  • Authors:
    • Xiao‑Cong Zhou
    • Meng Su
    • Ke‑Qiong Hu
    • Yin‑Fa Su
    • Ying‑Hai Ye
    • Chong‑Quan Huang
    • Zhen‑Lei Yu
    • Xiao‑Yang Li
    • Hong Zhou
    • Yao‑Zhong Ni
    • Yi Jiang
    • Zheng Lou
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: October 26, 2015     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2015.3827
  • Pages: 31-38
  • Copyright: © Zhou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

The present study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of pelvic anatomical and clinicopathological parameters for use in the estimation of the likely technical difficulties that may be encountered when performing open rectal surgery for mid‑low rectal cancer. Sixty consecutive patients, undergoing open rectal surgery for mid‑low rectal cancer were recruited between June 2009 and April 2014. All of the surgical procedures conducted, were low anterior resection (LAR) or abdominoperineal resection (APR). The operations were performed by the same surgeon and surgical team. Pelvic dimensions and angles were measured using three‑dimensional reconstruction of spiral computerized tomography (CT) images. Operative time and intraoperative blood loss were used as indicators of operative difficulty. The independent variables were pelvic anatomical and clinicopathological parameters, and the dependent variables were operative time and intraoperative blood loss. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed in order to determine the predictive significance of these variables. The pelvis width was significantly wider in females than in males (P<0.05), while the sacrococcygeal bending degree was significantly greater in males than in females (P<0.05). No significant difference were detected between the pelvis depth of females and males (P>0.05). Multivariate analyses showed that body mass index (BMI), tumor height, lymph node metastasis, anteroposterior diameter of the pelvic inlet, anteroposterior diameter of the pelvic outlet, height of the pubic symphysis, the sacrococcygeal distance, sacrococcygeal‑pubic angle and diameter of the upper pubis to the coccyx were the main factors affecting the operative time (all P<0.05), while the maximum diameter of the tumor was the primary factor affecting intraoperative blood loss (P<0.05). Between the two procedures, the clinicopathological parameters appeared to be more valuable for predicting difficulty in LAR, in which operative time was associated with tumor height and tumor staging (RC2=0.312; P<0.001). By contrast, the pelvic anatomical parameters appeared to be more valuable predictors of variation in APR, in which intraoperative blood loss was associated with the anteroposterior diameter of the mid‑pelvis, the anteroposterior diameter of the pelvic outlet, the interspinous diameter, the depth of the sacral curvature and the sacropubic distance (RC2=0.608; P=0.002). BMI, tumor height and the maximum diameter of the tumor may be used to predict the operative difficulty in performing open rectal surgery for mid‑low rectal cancer. In addition to the associated clinicopathological parameters, wider, shallower and less curved pelvises may make the greatest contribution to reducing operative time and intraoperative blood loss. Operative difficulty is likely to be increased in deeper and narrower pelvises, or in those with greater sacrococcygeal curvature.

References

1 

Dorudi S, Steele RJ and McArdle CS: Surgery for colorectal cancer. Br Med Bull. 64:101–118. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Heald RJ, Husband EM and Ryall RD: The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery - the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg. 69:613–616. 1982. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Baik SH, Kim NK, Lee KY, Sohn SK, Cho CH, Kim MJ, Kim H and Shinn RK: Factors influencing pathologic results after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Analysis of consecutive 100 cases. Ann Surg Oncol. 15:721–728. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Salerno G, Daniels IR, Brown G, Norman AR, Moran BJ and Heald RJ: Variations in pelvic dimensions do not predict the risk of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement in rectal cancer. World J Surg. 31:1313–1320. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

5 

Boyle KM, Petty D, Chalmers AG, Quirke P, Cairns A, Finan PJ, Sagar PM and Burke D: MRI assessment of the bony pelvis may help predict resectability of rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 7:232–240. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6 

Ogiso S, Yamaguchi T, Hata H, Fukuda M, Ikai I, Yamato T and Sakai Y: Evaluation of factors affecting the difficulty of laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: Narrow pelvis is not a contraindication. Surg Endosc. 25:1907–1912. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

7 

Salerno G, Daniels IR, Brown G, Heald RJ and Moran BJ: Magnetic resonance imaging pelvimetry in 186 patients with rectal cancer confirms an overlap in pelvic size between males and females. Colorectal Dis. 8:772–776. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

Killeen T, Banerjee S, Vijay V, Al-Dabbagh Z, Francis D and Warren S: Magnetic resonance (MR) pelvimetry as a predictor of difficulty in laparoscopic operations for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 24:2974–2979. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Veenhof AA, Engel AF, van der Peet DL, Sietses C, Meijerink WJ, de Lange-de Klerk ES and Cuesta MA: Technical difficulty grade score for the laparoscopic approach of rectal cancer: A single institution pilot study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 23:469–475. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

10 

Sobin LH and Brierly J: Colon and rectum. International Union Against Cancer (UICC) TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors. Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK and Wittekind C: (7th). (Oxford). Wiley-Blackwell. 100–105. 2009.

11 

Targarona EM, Balague C, Pernas JC, Martinez C, Berindoague R, Gich I and Trias M: Can we predict immediate outcome after laparoscopic rectal surgery? Multivariate analysis of clinical, anatomic and pathologic features after 3-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvic anatomy. Ann Surg. 247:642–649. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Akiyoshi T, Kuroyanagi H, Oya M, Konishi T, Fukuda M, Fujimoto Y, Ueno M, Miyata S and Yamaguchi T: Factors affecting the difficulty of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with double stapling technique anastomosis for low rectal cancer. Surgery. 146:483–489. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Gu J, Bo XF, Xiong CY, Wu AW, Zhang XP, Li M, An Q, Fang J, Li J, Zhang X, et al: Defining pelvic factors in sphincter-preservation of low rectal cancer with a three-dimensional digital model of pelvis. Dis Colon Rectum. 49:1517–1526. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

14 

Law WL and Chu KW: Anterior resection for rectal cancer with mesorectal excision: A prospective evaluation of 622 patients. Ann Surg. 240:260–268. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

Heald RJ and Karanjia ND: Results of radical surgery for rectal cancer. World J Surg. 16:848–857. 1992. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16 

Görög D, Tóth A, Péter A and Perner F: Is obesity a favorable factor for resectability of rectal cancer? Hepatogastroenterology. 51:630–633. 2004.PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

January 2016
Volume 11 Issue 1

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
APA
Zhou, X., Su, M., Hu, K., Su, Y., Ye, Y., Huang, C. ... Lou, Z. (2016). CT pelvimetry and clinicopathological parameters in evaluation of the technical difficulties in performing open rectal surgery for mid-low rectal cancer. Oncology Letters, 11, 31-38. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2015.3827
MLA
Zhou, X., Su, M., Hu, K., Su, Y., Ye, Y., Huang, C., Yu, Z., Li, X., Zhou, H., Ni, Y., Jiang, Y., Lou, Z."CT pelvimetry and clinicopathological parameters in evaluation of the technical difficulties in performing open rectal surgery for mid-low rectal cancer". Oncology Letters 11.1 (2016): 31-38.
Chicago
Zhou, X., Su, M., Hu, K., Su, Y., Ye, Y., Huang, C., Yu, Z., Li, X., Zhou, H., Ni, Y., Jiang, Y., Lou, Z."CT pelvimetry and clinicopathological parameters in evaluation of the technical difficulties in performing open rectal surgery for mid-low rectal cancer". Oncology Letters 11, no. 1 (2016): 31-38. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2015.3827