Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) or intersphincteric resection (ISR) has recently proven to be a valid and safe surgical procedure for low rectal cancer. However, studies focusing on the combination of these two technologies are limited. This study aimed to evaluate perioperative results, long-term oncologic outcomes, and anorectal functions of patients with low rectal cancer undergoing taTME combined with ISR, by comparing with those of patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (laAPR).


After 1:1 propensity score matching, 200 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent laAPR (n =100) or taTME combined with ISR (n =100) between September 2013 and November 2019 were included. Patient demographics, clinicopathological characteristics, oncological outcomes, and anal functional results were analysed.


Patients in the taTME-combined-with-ISR group had less intraoperative blood loss (79.6 ± 72.6 vs 107.3 ± 65.1 mL, P =0.005) and a lower rate of post-operative complications (22.0% vs 44.0%, P <0.001) than those in the laAPR group. The overall local recurrence rates were 7.0% in both groups within 3 years after surgery. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were 86.3% in the taTME-combined-with-ISR group and 75.1% in the laAPR group (P =0.056), while the 3-year overall survival rates were 96.7% and 94.2%, respectively (P =0.319). There were 39 patients (45.3%) in the taTME-combined-with-ISR group who developed major low anterior resection syndrome, whereas 61 patients (70.9%) had good post-operative anal function (Wexner incontinence score ≤ 10).


We found similar long-term oncological outcomes for patients with low rectal cancer undergoing laAPR and those undergoing taTME combined with ISR. Patients receiving taTME combined with ISR had acceptable post-operative anorectal function.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.