Two-Stage Turnbull-Cutait Pull-Through Coloanal Anastomosis for Low Rectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Short-term outcomes of the "minimal skin incision and no stoma" procedure in needlescopic intersphincteric resection and delayed coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Needlescopic surgery is a minimally invasive procedure that uses thin trocars with 3-mm diameter. We used Turnbull-Cutait pull-through and delayed coloanal anastomosis in needlescopic surgery to avoid diverting ileostomy during intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. In this study, we aim to assess the diverting ileostomy avoidance rate and technical safety of this "minimal skin incision and no stoma" procedure.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study was conducted at the Cancer Institute Hospital, a tertiary referral center in Japan. Between January 2017 and December 2020, 11 patients underwent needlescopic intersphincteric resection with diverting ileostomy (NSI group), and 19 patients underwent needlescopic intersphincteric resection with delayed coloanal anastomosis (NSD group) for low rectal cancer. Data regarding patient backgrounds and short-term outcomes, including diverting ileostomy avoidance rate, pathological results, and postoperative defecatory function, were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the NSI and NSD groups with respect to patient background, operation time (239 min versus 220 min, p = 0.68), estimated blood loss (45 g versus 25 g, p = 0.29), R0 resection rate (100% versus 100%, p = 1.00), and length of postoperative hospital stay (16 days versus 17 days, p = 0.42). The diverting ileostomy avoidance rate was 94.4% in the NSD group. The LARS and Wexner scores 12 months after surgery were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Needlescopic intersphincteric resection and delayed coloanal anastomosis can be safely performed in selected patients with a high rate of diverting ileostomy avoidance and comparable short-term outcomes.

Long-Term Results of 2-Stage Turnbull-Cutait Pull-Through Coloanal Anastomosis for Low Rectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

In patients operated on for low rectal cancer, 2-stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis provides benefits in terms of postoperative morbidity compared with standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis associated with diverting ileostomy and further ileostomy reversal.

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term results of these 2 techniques after ultralow rectal resection for rectal cancer.

DESIGN, Setting, and Participants

In this randomized multicenter clinical trial, neither patients nor surgeons were blinded for technique. Patients were recruited in 3 centers. Patients undergoing ultralow anterior rectal resection needing hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis were randomly assigned to 2-stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis (n = 46) or standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis associated with diverting ileostomy (n = 46).

INTERVENTIONS

All patients underwent ultralow anterior resection. Patients assigned to the 2-stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through group underwent exteriorization of a segment of left colon through the anal canal. After 6 to 10 days, the exteriorized colon was resected and a delayed hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis performed. For patients assigned to standard coloanal anastomosis, the hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis was performed with diverting ileostomy during the first operation. Ileostomy closure was scheduled after adjuvant treatment was completed in about 6 to 8 months.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE

The study aimed to compare the differences between the 2 groups in terms of long-term surgery-related morbidity, functional, and oncological outcomes at 3 years postoperatively. Data were analyzed from October 1, 2018, through October 31, 2021.

RESULTS

The 92 patients randomized in the first study were included for the 3-year follow-up. The overall morbidity rate in the 2 groups showed that 15 patients (16.3%) had complications with a difference of 6.52 (95% CI, -8.93 to 21.79). Nine patients (19.6%) and 6 patients (13.0%) in the 2-stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through group and hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis group, respectively, had complications without statistically significant differences (P = .57). Oncological results were comparable between the groups. Long-term fecal continence in the CCA and TCA groups, respectively, assessed using the Wexner Incontinence Score was 10.9 (5.50-15.5) vs 13.0 (7.25-16.0; P = .92), Low Anterior Resection Syndrome score was 32.0 (21.0-37.0) vs 34.0 (23.2-38.5; P = .76), and Colorectal Functional Outcome score was 38.5 (23.0-47.1) vs 40.8 (23.3-58.2; P = .30).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, after a 3-year follow-up period, 2-stage Turnbull-Cutait anastomosis for ultralow rectal cancer could be considered as a surgical alternative that has the valuable benefit of avoiding a temporary stoma with similar results in terms of morbidity, fecal continence, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and oncological outcomes when compared with hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis with ileostomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01766661.

Modified delayed coloanal anastomosis following TME for mid and low rectal cancer: 19 consecutive patients from a single center

Surgery and management of rectal cancer have made significant progress in recent decades. However, there is still no coloanal anastomosis technique that offers a good compromise between functionality and low morbidity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficiency of the modified delayed coloanal anastomosis (mDCA). In this retrospective study, we analyzed the morbi-mortality as well as functional outcomes of 19 patients treated with mDCA, out of 73 colorectal cancer patients treated at our institution from September 2021 to June 2023. The inclusion criteria were cancer of the mid and low rectum (tumor less than 10 cm from the anal verge). Morbidity represented by complications of Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher was estimated at 5.2%. Only one patient experienced an asymptomatic anastomotic leak (AL) grade A. Ischemia of the colonic stump occurred in one patient, taken back to the OR on the 5th postoperative day. No stump retraction was noted. Anastomotic stenosis appeared in one patient (5.2%) during the 90-day postoperative period, and was treated by instrumental dilation. Perioperative mortality was nil. The mean St Marks incontinence score at 90 days was 13.2 points. At the 3-month follow-up, 15 patients (78.9%) had major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), three (15.7%) had minor LARS, and one patient (5.2%) had no LARS. None of the patients had a diversion loop ileostomy. The mDCA, by decreasing the rate of AL, without the need for diversion ileostomy, might be an interesting alternative to the conventional immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICA), for restoring the GI tract after proctectomy for cancer.

Turnbull-Cutait pull-through coloanal anastomosis versus standard coloanal anastomosis plus diverting ileostomy for low anterior resection: a meta-analysis and systematic review

PURPOSE

Coloanal anastomosis with loop diverting ileostomy (CAA) is an option for low anterior resection of the rectum, and Turnbull-Cutait coloanal anastomosis (TCA) regained popularity in the effort to offer patients a reconstructive option. In this context, we aimed to compare both techniques.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched for studies published until January 2024. Odds ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled with a random-effects model. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics, with p-values inferior to 0.10 and I2 >25% considered significant. Statistical analysis was conducted in RStudio version 4.1.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Registered number CRD42024509963.

RESULTS

One randomized controlled trial and nine observational studies were included, comprising 1,743 patients, of whom 899 (51.5%) were submitted to TCA and 844 (48.5%) to CAA. Most patients had rectal cancer (52.2%), followed by megacolon secondary to Chagas disease (32.5%). TCA was associated with increased colon ischemia (OR 3.54; 95% CI 1.13 to 11.14; p < 0.031; I2 = 0%). There were no differences in postoperative complications classified as Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIb, anastomotic leak, pelvic abscess, intestinal obstruction, bleeding, permanent stoma, or anastomotic stricture. In subgroup analysis of patients with cancer, TCA was associated with a reduction in anastomotic leak (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97 p = 0.04; I2 = 34%).

CONCLUSION

TCA was associated with a decrease in anastomotic leak rate in subgroups analysis of patients with cancer.

Total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer: multicentre study comparing oncological outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision in high-volume centres

BACKGROUND

The routine use of MRI in rectal cancer treatment allows the use of a strict definition for low rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare minimally invasive total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer in expert laparoscopic, transanal and robotic high-volume centres.

METHODS

All MRI-defined low rectal cancer operated on between 2015 and 2017 in 11 Dutch centres were included. Primary outcomes were: R1 rate, total mesorectal excision quality and 3-year local recurrence and survivals (overall and disease free). Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, complications and whether there was a perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan.

RESULTS

Of 1071 eligible rectal cancers, 633 patients with low rectal cancer were identified. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen (P = 0.337), R1 rate (P = 0.107), conversion (P = 0.344), anastomotic leakage rate (P = 0.942), local recurrence (P = 0.809), overall survival (P = 0.436) and disease-free survival (P = 0.347) were comparable among the centres. The laparoscopic centre group had the highest rate of perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan (10.4%), compared with robotic expert centres (5.2%) and transanal centres (2.1%), P = 0.004. The main reason for this change was stapling difficulty (43%), followed by low tumour location (29%). Multivariable analysis showed that laparoscopic surgery was the only independent risk factor for a change in the preoperative planned procedure, P = 0.024.

CONCLUSION

Centres with expertise in all three minimally invasive total mesorectal excision techniques can achieve good oncological resection in the treatment of MRI-defined low rectal cancer. However, compared with robotic expert centres and transanal centres, patients treated in laparoscopic centres have an increased risk of a change in the preoperative intended procedure due to technical limitations.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision With Delayed Coloanal Anastomosis (TaTME-DCAA) Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (LTME) and Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision (RTME) for Low Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Short-term Outcomes, Bowel Function, and Cost

INTRODUCTION

Total mesorectal excision (TME) with delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) is surgical option for low rectal cancer, replacing conventional immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA) with bowel diversion. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of transanal TME (TaTME) with DCAA versus laparoscopic TME (LTME) with ICAA versus robotic TME (RTME) with ICAA.

METHODS

This was a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis of patients who underwent elective TaTME-DCAA between November 2021 and June 2022. Patients were propensity-score matched in a ratio of 1:3 to patients who underwent LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA from January 2019 to December 2020. Outcome measures were histopathologic results, postoperative morbidity, function, and inpatient costs.

RESULTS

Twelve patients in the TaTME-DCAA group were compared with 36 patients in the LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA groups each after propensity score matching. Histopathologic results and postoperative morbidity rates were statistically similar. Overall stoma-related complication rates in the ICAA groups were 11%. Median total length of hospital stays for TME plus stoma reversal surgery was similar across all techniques (10 vs. 10 vs. 9 days; P =0.532). Despite a significantly shorter duration of follow-up, bowel function after TaTME-DCAA was comparable to that of LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA. Overall median inpatient costs of TaTME-DCAA were comparable to LTME-ICAA and significantly cheaper than RTME-ICAA ($31,087 vs. $29,927 vs. $36,750; P =0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

TaTME with DCAA is a feasible and safe technique compared with other minimally invasive methods of TME, while avoiding bowel diversion and stoma-related complications, as well as comparing favorably in terms of overall hospitalization costs.

Anastomotic leakage and functional outcomes following total mesorectal excision with delayed and immediate colo-anal anastomosis for rectal cancer: Two single-arm phase II trials

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains a major cause of morbidity following total mesorectal excision (TME). A diverting ileostomy reduces the risk of AL but impairs quality of life (QoL). Delayed colo-anal anastomosis (DCAA) may be an alternative to immediate colo-anal anastomosis (ICAA) without creation of a diverting ileostomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients with T3 or N+ rectal tumours were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and TME. To evaluate DCAA or ICAA with diverting ileostomy, a two multicenter single-arm phase II trials was designed. The primary endpoint was the rate of AL requiring a diverting ileostomy up to 30 days postoperatively. Secondary endpoints were 30-day postoperative complications, 1- and 2-year disease-free survival; QoL at baseline, 6 months and anorectal function measured by the low anterior resection syndrome questionnaire and Wexner score at baseline, 6 months and a late assessment at median 8 years following surgery.

RESULTS

AL requiring diverting ileostomy occurred in one patient (2.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0; 11.1]) in the DCAA group and in five patients (8.6%; 95%CI [3.2; 21.0]) in the ICAA group. Thirty-day postoperative complications occurred in 13 patients (27.1%) in the DCAA group and in 10 patients (19.2%) in the ICAA group. Short and long-term functional outcomes showed similar patterns.

CONCLUSION

These two single-arm phase II trials showed that DCAA has low rates of AL requiring a diverting ileostomy and acceptable long-term functional results. DCAA seems a good choice to restore bowel continuity.

Is Delaying a Coloanal Anastomosis the Ideal Solution for Rectal Surgery?: Analysis of a Multicentric Cohort of 564 Patients From the GRECCAR

OBJECTIVES

To assess the specific results of delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) in light of its 2 main indications.

BACKGROUND

DCAA can be proposed either immediately after a low anterior resection (primary DCAA) or after the failure of a primary pelvic surgery as a salvage procedure (salvage DCAA).

METHODS

All patients who underwent DCAA intervention at 30 GRECCAR-affiliated hospitals between 2010 and 2021 were retrospectively included.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-four patients (male: 63%; median age: 62 years; interquartile range: 53-69) underwent a DCAA: 66% for primary DCAA and 34% for salvage DCAA. Overall morbidity, major morbidity, and mortality were 57%, 30%, and 1.1%, respectively, without any significant differences between primary DCAA and salvage DCAA ( P = 0.933; P = 0.238, and P = 0.410, respectively). Anastomotic leakage was more frequent after salvage DCAA (23%) than after primary DCAA (15%), ( P = 0.016).Fifty-five patients (10%) developed necrosis of the intra-abdominal colon. In multivariate analysis, intra-abdominal colon necrosis was significantly associated with male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 2.67 95% CI: 1.22-6.49; P = 0.020], body mass index >25 (OR = 2.78 95% CI: 1.37-6.00; P = 0.006), and peripheral artery disease (OR = 4.68 95% CI: 1.12-19.1; P = 0.030). The occurrence of this complication was similar between primary DCAA (11%) and salvage DCAA (8%), ( P = 0.289).Preservation of bowel continuity was reached 3 years after DCAA in 74% of the cohort (primary DCAA: 77% vs salvage DCAA: 68%, P = 0.031). Among patients with a DCAA mannered without diverting stoma, 75% (301/403) have never required a stoma at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

DCAA makes it possible to definitively avoid a stoma in 75% of patients when mannered initially without a stoma and to save bowel continuity in 68% of the patients in the setting of failure of primary pelvic surgery.

Risk factors for ischemia/necrosis of the colonic stump after proctectomy and delayed coloanal anastomosis

INTRODUCTION

Delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) is a two-stage procedure. DCAA has been increasingly reused in recent years in the management of rectal cancer. Such increased use of DCAA has highlighted the complications associated with this procedure. We aimed to evaluate the risk and risk factors of ischemia/necrosis of the colonic stump between the two stages of DCAA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent a proctectomy with a DCAA were included in this retrospective single-centre study from November 2012 to June 2022. Two groups of patients were defined: patients with a well vascularized colonic stump (well vascularized group) and those who experienced ischemia or necrosis of the colonic stump (ischemic group). The primary endpoint was the rate of ischemia or necrosis of the colonic stump and an evaluation of the associated risk factors.

RESULTS

During the study period, 43 patients underwent DCAA. Amongst them, 32 (75%) had a well-vascularized colonic stump (well-vascularized group) and 11 (25%) ischemia of the colonic stump (ischemic group). Relative to patients in the well-vascularized group, those in the ischemic group were more often men (81.8% vs 40.6%, p = 0.034), had a higher BMI (29.2 kg/m2 vs 25.7 kg/m2, p = 0.03), were more frequently diabetic (63.6% vs 21.9%, p = 0.01) and more frequently had had preoperative radiotherapy (100% vs 53.1%, p = 0.008). On the preoperative CT scan, the interspinous diameter was shorter in the ischemic group (9.4 ± 1.01 cm vs 10.6 ± 1.01 cm, p = 0.001), the intertuberosity diameter was shorter (9.2 ± 1.18 cm vs 11.9 ± 1.18 cm, p < 0.0001), and the length of the anal canal was longer (31.9 ± 3 mm vs 27.4 ± 3.2 mm, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights clear risk factors for ischemia/necrosis of the colonic stump after proctectomy with DCAA.

Modified pull-through coloanal anastomosis to avoid permanent stomas and reduce postoperative complications for lower rectal tumors

BACKGROUND

We performed pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis immediately after sphincter-preserving ultralow anterior resection (ULAR) [pull-through ultra (PTU)] to avoid permanent stoma and reduce postoperative complications of lower rectal tumors. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of PTU versus non-PTU (stapled or hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis with diverting stoma) after sphincter-preserving ULAR for lower rectal tumors.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed prospectively maintained data from 100 consecutive patients who underwent PTU (n = 29) or non-PTU (n = 71) after sphincter-preserving ULAR for rectal tumors between January 2011 and March 2023. In PTU, hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis was immediately performed using 16 stitches of 4-0 monofilament suture during primary surgery. The clinical outcomes were assessed. The primary outcomes were rates of permanent stomas and overall postoperative complications.

RESULTS

The PTU group was significantly less likely to require a permanent stoma than the non-PTU group (P < 0.01). None of the patients in the PTU group required permanent stoma and the rate of overall complications was significantly lower in the PTU group (P = 0.01). The median operative time was comparable between the two groups (P = 0.33) but the median operative time during the second stage was significantly shorter in the PTU group (P < 0.01). The rates of anastomotic leakage and complications of Clavien-Dindo grade III were comparable between the two groups. Diverting ileostomy was performed in two patients with an anastomotic leak in the PTU group. The PTU group was significantly less likely to require a diverting ileostomy than those in the non-PTU group (P < 0.01). The composite length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the PTU group (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

PTU via immediate coloanal anastomosis for lower rectal tumors is a safe alternative to the current sphincter-preserving ULAR with diverting ileostomy for patients who wish to avoid a stoma.

The learning curve of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery of millennial surgeons: Lessons for a safe implementation in low- and middle-income countries

Objective

This study aimed to analyse the learning curve (LC) in laparoscopic rectal cancer resections of 2 millennial surgeons during the implementation of the first laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery programme in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) cancer centre.

Methods

All consecutive patients operated by two millennial surgeons for primary rectal adenocarcinoma between January 2018 and March 2020 were included. The LC was analysed for operative duration and conversion to open surgery using both cumulative sum (CUSUM) and/or variable life-adjusted display (VLAD) charts.

Results

Eighty-four patients were included, 45 (53.6%) men with a mean age of 57.3 years. Abdominoperineal resection was performed in 31 (36.9%) cases and resections were extended to other organs in 20 (23.8%) patients. Thirteen patients (15.5%) had conversion to open surgery. Using CUSUM, Learning curve based on conversion was completed at 12 cases for the first surgeon versus 10 cases for the second. While using VLAD and learning curve-CUSUM (LC-CUSUM), the cases needed were 26 vs 24 respectively. The median operative duration was 314 min with a LC completed at cases (17 vs. 26), and (18 vs. 29) using, respectively, standard and LC-CUSUM.

Conclusions

This study shows a safe and short LC of millennial surgeons during the implementation of a laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery in an LMIC cancer centre, and the valuable use of modern statistical methods in the prospective assessment of LC safety during surgical training.

Parachute-like pull-through anastomosis for low rectal cancer: a new method for preservation of anal function

BACKGROUND

With recent improvements in surgical technique, oncological outcomes of low rectal cancer have improved over time. But the QoL impairment as a result of anal functional disorder cannot be ignored. And the incidence of anastomosis-related complications cannot be ignored. To address these problems, a personal technique for pull-through coloanal anastomosis (parachute-like intussuscept pull-through anastomosis) was introduced and evaluated. This technique can relatively reduce surgical complications, minimize the impact of anal function, and obviate a colostomy creation.

METHODS

Between June 2020 and April 2021, 14 consecutive patients with rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic-assisted resection of rectal cancer in our hospital. Parachute-like pull-through anastomosis method was performed in all patients. Anal function, perioperative details, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) operative time of first stage was 282.1 min (range 220-370) with an average estimated blood loss of 90.3 mL (range 33-200). And the mean (SD) operative time of second was 46 min (range 25-76) with an average estimated blood loss of 16.1 mL (range 5-50). Wexner scores declined significantly during the median follow-up of 18 months. Four postoperative anastomosis-related complications occurred in 14 patients, including perianastomotic abscess: 1 case (7%), anastomotic stricture: 1 case (7%), and colonic ischemia of the exteriorized colonic segment: 2 cases (14%).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that the method can facilitate safe and easy completion of coloanal anastomosis, using parachute-like pull-through anastomosis, with acceptable anal function.

Transanal total mesorectal excision and delayed coloanal anastomosis without stoma for low rectal cancer

The management of low rectal cancer is a perennial challenge for colorectal surgeons. The benefits of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) in low rectal cancer are to secure the distal margin and avoid surgical space constraints within the deep pelvis. However, anastomotic leak remains an important concern. We report our technique and results combining TaTME with delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) without bowel diversion. First, the splenic flexure, left colon and rectum are laparoscopically mobilized to mid-rectum. TaTME is performed to complete the distal rectal mobilization, and the specimen is delivered transanally and transected. The abdominoperineal colonic pull-through is secured to the anal canal and hypertonic dressing is applied regularly in the ward. The handsewn DCAA is performed one week later. An accompanying video demonstrates this technique. Five consecutive patients with low rectal cancer underwent TaTME with DCAA. All had upfront surgical resection except one who underwent total neoadjuvant therapy. Mean operative duration, blood loss, and length of hospital stay was 290 (250-375) min, 142 (10-200) ml and 11.6 (10-14) days respectively. One patient (20%) suffered a postoperative complication of persistent urinary retention, requiring an indwelling urinary catheter on discharge. There were no cases of open conversion and no instances of anastomotic leakage. Two patients (40%) had minor low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) and one (20%) had major LARS. TaTME and DCAA without stoma are complimentary techniques that augment the minimally invasive effects of laparoscopic sphincter-sparing low rectal cancer surgery, with good perioperative outcomes.

Coloanal Anastomosis

The furthest extent of restorative proctectomy involves a colon to anal anastomosis in the deep pelvis. While the anastomosis can be challenging, it can allow the patient to avoid a permanent ostomy. Patient and surgeon preparation can improve patient outcomes. This article will describe the options, technical challenges, and anecdotal tips for coloanal anastomosis.

Cost‐effectiveness comparison of delayed versus immediate coloanal anastomosis following ultralow anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Following ultralow anterior resection for distal rectal cancers, a coloanal anastomosis is usually created along with a defunctioning ileostomy (DI). Recent evidence suggests that abdominoperineal pull-through with delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) is a viable alternative to immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA), minimizing the risk of anastomotic leakage and avoiding the need for stoma creation with the risk of stoma-associated morbidity. However, DCAA requires a longer initial hospitalization. We aimed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare DCAA versus ICAA for elective rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A decision tree model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two strategies. Cost data were obtained from the 2019 to 2020 United Kingdom National Health Service reference costs. Model probabilities were derived from published studies. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

DCAA was the overall cheaper strategy at £13 541 compared with £14 856 for ICAA in the base case analysis. This was explained by the decreased overall costs of hospitalization/surgery, reduction in costs associated with anastomotic or stoma-related complications, specifically dehydration-induced hospital readmissions and avoidance of stoma maintenance costs. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that DCAA remained consistently more inexpensive except when the duration of total parenteral nutrition exceeded 14 days.

CONCLUSION

Despite a longer index hospitalization with higher initial costs, this economic analysis demonstrates that DCAA without stoma is overall more cost-effective compared with ICAA with DI following ultralow anterior resection. Cost savings should be considered an additional benefit when selecting the DCAA approach for rectal cancer surgery.

Turnbull-Cutait abdominoperineal pull-through operation: The Cleveland Clinic experience in the 21st century

AIM

The Turnbull-Cutait pull-through procedure (TCO) restores intestinal continuity in the setting of chronic pelvic sepsis, colorectal anastomotic leak, complex pelvic fistulas and technical challenges related to complicated rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the TCO for salvaging complex pelvic conditions and to compare it to hand-sewn immediate coloanal anastomosis (CAA).

METHODS

This is a retrospective single-institution study where we searched a prospectively maintained database to identify patients who underwent the TCO. Patient demographics, operative indications and outcomes were analysed. TCO success was defined as maintenance of intestinal continuity and being stoma-free. Kaplan-Meier analysis was employed for stoma-free survival analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients with TCO and 129 patients with CAA were included. The TCO success rate was 69% at a median of 1.4 years' follow-up with 25 (31%) patients ending up with a permanent stoma compared to 22 (17%) in the CAA group with a median follow-up of 4 years (P = 0.03). The Kaplan-Meier cumulative incidence of TCO success at 1, 3 and 5 years was 79%, 60% and 51%, respectively, compared to 91%, 81% and 73% after CAA.

CONCLUSION

The TCO has a high success rate for patients with complex pelvic conditions who may be facing a permanent stoma as their only option.

Postoperative rectovaginal fistula: Can colonic pull-through delayed coloanal anastomosis avoid the need for definitive stoma? An experience of 28 consecutives cases

AIM

Management of rectovaginal fistula (RVF) remains a challenge, especially in cases of postoperative RVF as they are often large and surrounded by inflammatory and fibrotic tissue, making local repair difficult or even impossible. In this situation, colonic pull-through delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) could be an interesting option. The aim of this study was to assess the results of DCAA for RVF observed after rectal surgery.

METHODS

All patients who underwent DCAA for RVF were reviewed. Success was defined as a patient without stoma and without any symptoms of recurrent RVF at the end of follow-up.

RESULTS

From January 2010 to December 2020, 28 DCAA were performed for RVF after rectal surgery for rectal cancer (n = 21) or endometriosis (n = 7). Ten patients (36%) had at least one previous local procedure before DCAA. DCAA was associated with temporary ileostomy in 22/28 cases (79%). After a mean follow-up of 23 ± 23 (2-82) months, the success rate was 86% (24/28): three patients (11%) required a definitive stoma because of poor functional results (n = 1), chronic pelvic sepsis with anastomotic leakage (n = 1) or stoma reversal refused (n = 1). Another patient (3%) presented with recurrence of RVF, 26 months after DCAA. Although not significant, the success rate was higher in cases of DCAA with diverting stoma (20/22, 91%) than without (4/6, 67%) (p = 0.191).

CONCLUSION

In cases of postoperative RVF, DCAA is a safe option which can avoid definitive stoma in the great majority of the patients. Concomitant use of a temporary stoma appears to slightly increase the success rate.

Preliminary functional results after transanal irrigation in patients undergoing SHiP procedure for low rectal cancer

The short-stump and high-anastomosis pull-through procedure (SHiP) is a newly introduced technique in the treatment of rectal cancer. This procedure does not involve the creation of a diverting ostomy with great improvement of the patients’ quality of life in the post-operative period. However, functional post-operative alterations such as low anterior rectal resection syndrome (LARS) may occur. In this context, trans-anal irrigation (TAI) may represent a viable option in the treatment and management of LARS symptoms. The aim of the present study is to investigate the role of TAI in patients operated on SHiP procedure for low rectal cancer. A prospective database of 17 patients who underwent a SHiP procedure was maintained from April 2019 to December 2021. Anal continence and functional outcomes were assessed through LARS score and Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS), respectively. All patients with a LARS score > 21 underwent TAI in the post-operative period. LARS median value was 36 (IQR = 8) and drastically improved after TAI treatment to 3 (IQR = 3), as the CCIS at a mean follow-up of 9 months (SD ± 5.02). Good functional result was reached in 12 out of 13 patients (92%). Our study confirms that patients with severe post-operative dysfunction could benefit from the use of TAI.

Functional outcomes of intersphincteric resection in low rectal tumors

OBJECTIVES

Currently, sphincter-saving procedures are increasingly performed in the treatment of low rectal cancers. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent intersphincteric resection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional study. We evaluated the electronic data files of 29 patients who had intersphincteric resections at our institute between 2008 and 2018. Bowel function outcomes were assessed prospectively using Wexner incontinence score. Histopathological, surgical and functional outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Mean age of nine female and 20 male patients included in the study was 55.8 ± 12.8 (30-76) years. A tumor-free surgical margin was achieved in all patients. Anastomotic leakage was detected in two patients. Mean Wexner incontinence score of 20 patients who still had functional anastomosis was 8.35, whereas 65% of the patients (n= 13) had a good continence status. There was no relationship between the continence status and sex, tumor distance from anal verge, T stage, distal surgical margin, and lymph node involvement. Twenty-one patients underwent primary coloanal anastomosis and eight patients underwent two-stage coloanal anastomosis.

CONCLUSION

In the treatment of distal rectal cancer, adequate oncological surgery and relatively acceptable functional outcomes can be obtained with intersphincteric resection technique in suitable patients.

Is it safe to perform an anastomosis for rectal cancer after prostate cancer? A multicentre study of 126 patients from the GRECCAR group

AIM

To determine the safety of performing an anastomosis after rectal cancer (RC) resection in patients with a previously treated prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

Patients with a previously treated PC who underwent rectal resection from 2008 to 2018 were retrospectively included. Outcomes were compared between patients who underwent rectal resection with anastomosis (restorative surgery, RS+ group) and those with a definitive stoma (RS- group). In the RS+ group, anastomotic leak (AL) rates were assessed according to the type of reconstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 126 patients underwent rectal surgery for mid-low RC after a previous PC treated by radiotherapy (RT) and/or radical prostatectomy. Overall, 80 patients (63%) underwent a RS and 46 patients (37%) underwent rectal surgery with a definitive stoma. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of intraoperative data, except for the type of resection with more multivisceral resection in the RS- group (p < 0.01). In the RS+group, a diverting stoma was performed in 74% of cases. No difference between the two groups in terms of overall morbidity was found. In the RS+group (n = 80), 17 patients (21%) experienced AL. Of these, none was observed when delayed coloanal anastomosis was performed (p = 0.16). Long-term permanent stoma in the RS+ group was 16% (n = 13).

CONCLUSION

Restorative surgery after resection for RC in patients with a previous history of RT and/or radical prostatectomy for PC is safe without additional morbidity. In selected patients for restorative surgery, performing delayed coloanal anastomosis may represent a promising option.

How to perform an anastomosis following a low anterior resection by transanal total mesorectal excision surgery: from top to bottom techniques

AIM

The aim was to describe the range of possibilities and our group's clinical outcomes when performing different types of anastomosis during transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME).

METHOD

A retrospective analysis was performed based on four taTME series from 2016 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were patients with rectal cancer in whom a sphincter-saving low anterior resection by taTME was performed. Four different techniques were employed for the anastomosis construction: (A) abdominal view, (B) transanal view, (C) hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis and (D) pull-through. Intra-operative and postoperative data were collected and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 161 patients were included. Tumour height was lower in groups C and D (4 [3-5] vs. 7 [6-8] group A vs. 6 [5-7] group B, P = 0.000), requiring a hand-sewn anastomosis. A transanal extraction of the specimen was more commonly performed in groups C and D (over 60% vs. 30% in groups A and B, P = 0.000). The rate of temporary stoma was similar between groups A, B and C (ranging from 84% to 98%) but was significantly lower in group D (P = 0.000). The overall rate of complications was similar between groups; however, group D had longer length of stay (15 days vs. 5-6 in groups A, B and C, P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Every type of anastomosis construction after a taTME procedure seems to be safe and feasible and should be chosen based on surgeon's experience, tumour height and the length of the rectal cuff after the rectal transection. Colorectal surgeons should be familiar with these techniques in order to choose the one that benefits each patient the most.

Delayed pull-through coloanal anastomosis without temporary stoma: an alternative to the standard manual side-to-end coloanal anastomosis with temporary stoma? A comparative study in 223 patients with low rectal cancer

AIM

After total mesorectal excision (TME) for low rectal cancer, current guideline recommendations for sphincter-saving surgery are to perform a side-to-end manual coloanal anastomosis (CAA) (or with J-pouch) with a temporary stoma. Our study aimed to evaluate if delayed pull-through coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) without a temporary stoma could represent a safe alternative in low rectal cancer.

METHOD

From 2003 to 2020, 223 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer undergoing TME were compared: CAA and diverting stoma (n = 190) versus DCAA without stoma (n = 33).

RESULTS

Overall 3-month and severe (Dindo ≥ IIIb) morbidity rates were similar in CAA versus DCAA groups: 34% (65/190) vs. 36% (12/33) and 2.6% (5/190) vs. 3% (1/33), respectively. In the DCAA group, only one patient (3%) underwent reoperation (Hartmann's procedure) at day 3 due to colon necrosis. The anastomotic leakage rate (both clinical and radiological) was significantly higher after CAA than DCAA: 28% (53/190) vs. 3% (1/33; p = 0.00138). Failure of the procedure (with return to stoma) was observed in 8% (15/190) vs. 6% (2/33) of patients after CAA and DCAA respectively (not significant).

CONCLUSION

Our comparative study suggested that in patients with low rectal cancer, DCAA without a temporary stoma could represent an interesting alternative to the actual recommended CAA with a temporary ileostomy. DCAA could offer two major advantages over CAA: a significantly lower rate of anastomotic leakage and absence of a temporary stoma and its potential complications (rehospitalization, dehydration, wound hernia after stoma closure).

Laparoscopic Proximally Extended Colorectal Resection With Two-Stage Turnbull-Cutait Pull-Through Coloanal Anastomosis for Late Complications of Chronic Radiation Proctopathy

Background

Chronic radiation proctopathy (CRP) is a common complication after radiation therapy for pelvic malignancies. Compared with diversion surgery, resection surgery removes the damaged tissue completely to avoid the risks of recurrence and improve patients' outcome. Hence, resection surgery could be an optimal surgical approach when CRP is complicated by late complications. This study aimed to describe a modified surgical procedure of resection surgery and report its preliminary efficacy and safety in treating patients with CRP with late complications.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the patients who were diagnosed with CRP with late complications and underwent the modified surgical procedure of laparoscopic proximally extended colorectal resection with two-Stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through coloanal anastomosis (PE-Bacon) between November 2019 and October 2020 in the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University.

Results

A total of 15 patients were performed the modified laparoscopic procedure of PE-Bacon, of which 1 patient underwent conversion from laparoscopic to open operation for intraoperative massive hemorrhage. Overall, the major (Clavien-Dindo III-V) postoperative complications occurred in 1 patient, anastomotic leakage was observed in 2 (13.3%) patients, and anastomotic stricture was observed in 4 (26.7%) patients. No patient had to be reoperated and died. Up to now, at the average follow-up of (524.40 ± 108.39) days, the preoperative symptoms of 93.3% (14/15) patients were relieved, with nine patients achieved complete remission, five patients only suffered minor symptoms. Because of the progression of radiation uropathy, one patient still had a vesicovaginal fistula as pre-operative complication. Colostomy reversal has been performed on 8 (53.3%) patients at an average postoperative duration of 299.5 ± 92.68 days, among whom only 2 patients suffered from major Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) until now.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic PE-Bacon surgery is a safe and feasible surgical procedure for late complications of CRP with low morbidity and high symptom remission rate.

Redo surgery after low anterior resection for chronic pelvic sinus and anastomotic disruption. Could pull-through procedure with delayed anastomosis be a feasible alternative? Case reports and narrative review

Introduction

Case presentation

Discussion

Conclusion

•

Complications after colorectal anastomosis, such as septic leakage or anastomotic disruption, remain a problem to deal with for colorectal surgeons.

•

Conversion to terminal colostomy is the most frequent option chosen, but the most of time restoration of bowel continuity is not performed.

•

Delayed coloanal anastomosis with pull-through procedure described by Turnbull-Cutait might be an option to consider in difficult situations, to maintain or to restore intestinal continuity and could be also chosen as a first option for coloanal anastomosis.

Surgical outcomes of Turnbull-Cutait delayed coloanal anastomosis with pull-through versus immediate coloanal anastomosis with diverting stoma after total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Theoretical advantages of Turnbull-Cutait pull-through delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) are a reduced risk of anastomotic leak and therefore avoidance of stoma. Gradually abandoned in favor of immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA) with diverting stoma, DCAA has regained popularity in recent years in reconstructive surgery for low RC, especially when combined with minimally invasive surgery (MIS). The aim of this study was to perform the first meta-analysis, exploring the safety and outcomes of DCAA compared to ICAA with protective stoma.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL and Google Scholar databases was performed for studies published from January 2000 until December 2020. The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review on Interventions recommendations and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Out of 2626 studies screened, 9 were included in the systematic review and 4 studies in the meta-analysis. Outcomes included were postoperative complications, pelvic sepsis and risk of definitive stoma. Considering postoperative complications classified as Clavien-Dindo III, no significant difference existed in the rate of postoperative morbidity between DCAA and ICAA (13% versus 21%; OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.38-3.62; p = 0.78; I² = 20%). Patients in the DCAA group experienced a lower rate of postoperative pelvic sepsis compared with patients undergoing ICAA with diverting stoma (7% versus 14%; OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.16-0.85; p = 0.02; I² = 0%). The risk of definitive stoma was comparable between the two groups (2% versus 2% OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.15-3.85; p = 0.75; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the limited current evidence, DCAA is associated with a significant decrease in pelvic sepsis. Further prospective trials focusing on oncologic and functional outcomes are needed.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) with delayed coloanal anastomosis versus TaTME with immediate coloanal anastomosis and temporary diversion in middle and low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) avoids the difficulty of laparoscopic dissection of the lower part of the rectum. The need for stoma is associated with many stoma-related complications. The objective was to compare TaTME with immediate coloanal anastomosis and protective ileostomy (TaTME-IA) versus Turnbull-Cutait delayed coloanal anastomosis (TaTME-TC).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study included patients with low rectal cancer at least 1 cm above the top of the anal sphincter. Patients had either TaTME-IA or TaTME-TC. Primary outcome measures were anastomotic and stoma-related complications. Secondary outcomes included rate of permanent stomas, local recurrence, continence, and quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

TaTME-IA was done in 25 patients versus 20 who had TaTME-TC. TaTME-IA had significantly longer mean operative time (p = 0.04) and shorter length of stay (LOS) (4.5 vs. 11.4 days; p = 0.0001) compared to TaTME-TC. Anastomotic leak was reported in two patients of TaTME-IA versus one patient of TaTME-TC (p = 0.77). Anastomotic stenosis was reported in one patient in each group. No significant difference between groups as regard continence, local recurrence, and QOL.

CONCLUSION

TaTME-TC is a safe option that can be offered for patients with low rectal cancer who refuse or are not amenable to a temporary stoma. Anastomotic complications were similar in both groups. LOS was much longer in TaTME-TC, however, it avoids stoma complications. Both groups had similar functional oncologic outcomes and QOL.

OUP accepted manuscript

Cases of delayed colo-anal anastomosis (DCAA) are currently reported instead of the colo-anal anastomosis with a protective loop ileostomy for rectal cancer. Post-operative colonic ischemia is considered as one of the serious complications of colorectal resection. Although indication of DCAA should be carefully selected, we experienced a case of post-operative stenosis caused by colonic ischemia after low anterior resection for rectal cancer, followed by this procedure.

Surgical Treatment of Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: Updates

Despite innovative advancements, distally located rectal cancer remains a critical disease of challenging management. The crucial location of the tumor predisposes it to a circumferential resection margin (CRM) that tends to involve the anal sphincter complex and surrounding organs, with a high incidence of delayed anastomotic complications and the risk of the pelvic sidewall or rarely inguinal lymph node metastases. In this regard, colorectal surgeons should be aware of other issues beyond total mesorectal excision (TME) performance. For decades, the concept of extralevator abdominoperineal resection to avoid compromised CRM has been introduced. However, the complexity of deep pelvic dissection with poor visualization in low-lying rectal cancer has led to transanal TME. In contrast, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) has allowed for the execution of more sphincter-saving procedures without oncologic compromise. Significant tumor regression after NCRT and complete pathologic response also permit applying the watch-and-wait protocol in some cases, now with more solid evidence. This review article will introduce the current surgical treatment options, their indication and technical details, and recent oncologic and functional outcomes. Lastly, the novel characteristics of distal rectal cancer, such as pelvic sidewall and inguinal lymph node metastases, will be discussed along with its tailored and individualized treatment approach.

Prognostic factors for complications after loop ileostomy reversal

BACKGROUND

Defunctioning ileostomy creation and closure are both associated with morbidity. There is little data available about complications after ileostomy closure. The aim of this study was to evaluate morbidity related to loop ileostomy closure (LIC) and to determine if patients with postoperative complications in primary surgery suffer from more postoperative complications during stoma closure.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study on prospectively registered consecutive patients undergoing elective LIC in a single centre in Spain between April 2010 and December 2017. Baseline characteristics, postoperative complications after primary surgery and after stoma closure were recorded. Primary surgery included any colorectal resection, elective or urgent associated with a diverting loop ileostomy either as a protective stoma or rescue procedure. A logistic regression model was used to assess the effects of baseline variables and postoperative complications after primary surgery on the existence of postoperative complications related to LIC.

RESULTS

Four hundred and twenty-eight patients (288 men, median age 64.5 years [IQR 55.1-72.3 years]) were included in the study, and 37.4%, developed complications after LIC. The most common was paralytic ileus. Only chronic kidney disease (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.03-5.33, p = 0.043), existence of postoperative complications after primary surgery (OR 2.25; 95% CI 1.41-3.66, p =  < 0.001) and ileostomy closure later than 10 months after primary surgery (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.00-2.33, p = 0.049) were statistically significant in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with chronic kidney disease, those who had any complication after primary surgery and those who had LIC > 10 months after primary surgery have a significantly higher risk of developing postoperative complications.

Can end-to-end anastomosis reduce the risks of anastomotic leak compared to side-to-end anastomosis? A comparative study of 518 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low- or mid-rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

After laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for low or mid-rectal cancer, we observed several cases of anastomotic leakage (AL) in patients with side-to-end anastomosis (STE). Thus, from December 2018, we routinely performed end-to-end anastomosis (ETE). The aim of this study was to assess if this new strategy changed AL and chronic pelvic sepsis rates in our department.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on all the patients who underwent a laparoscopic rectal resection with TME and sphincter-saving surgery for mid- and low-rectal adenocarcinoma from January 2006 to December 2019. A comparative study between STE and routine ETE was performed. The primary outcome was the assessment of postoperative AL rate. The secondary outcomes were: (a) overall morbidity rate; (c) severe morbidity rate defined by a Clavien-Dindo score > 3; (c) chronic leak rate.

RESULTS

Five hundred eighteen patients underwent TME: STE was performed in 394 cases (76%) and ETE in 124 but for the first 66 cases only if STE was impossible (i.e., too short colon, obese patients). AL rates for STE were 57/204 (23%) after stapled colorectal anastomosis (CRA) and 34/190 (18%) after manual coloanal anastomosis (CAA). Since December 2018, routine ETE was performed in 58 cases. The AL rate for routine ETE was 3/24 (12%) for CRA, and 2/34 (6%) for CAA: thus, The AL rate dropped from 23% (91/394) after STE to 9% (5/58) after routine ETE (p = 0.0005). After a mean follow-up of 43 months (6-156), incidence of chronic AL was 68/394 (17%) after STE and 15/117 (13%) after ETE (p = 0.32). In the group of ETE with chronic AL, 11 patients (73%) spontaneously healed and stoma reversal was possible, whereas this happened in only 20 patients (29%) after STE (p = 0.0025).

CONCLUSIONS

ETE seems to be associated with a significantly lower rate of AL and higher rate of spontaneous healing after chronic AL than STE.

Two-step pull-through colo-anal anastomosis aiming to avoid stoma in rectal cancer surgery: A "real life" study in a developing country

BACKGROUND

Delayed colo-anal anastomosis (DCA) is an underused technique rarely performed after resection of primary low rectal adenocarcinoma. The objective of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of DCA and classical colo-anal anastomosis (CAA).

METHODS

This is a retrospective comparative study carried out at two tertiary centres in Morocco and France. It included all patients who underwent colo-anal anastomosis after complete mesorectal excision for primary rectal adenocarcinoma between January 2018 and December 2019. The main outcomes were 90-day morbidity and rates completing the surgical steps of DCA and CAA.

RESULTS

Among 215 rectal resections, 45 patients received colo-anal anastomosis, including 19 DCA and 26 CAA. Seventeen patients in the DCA group completed the two steps compared to 16 in the CAA group (89.5% vs. 61.5%, P=0.04). The rates of severe complications (26.9% vs. 26.3%, P=0.96) and anastomotic leakage (42.3% vs. 31.6%, P=0.46) were not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that DCA was associated with a higher rate of completing the two surgical steps, with no difference in overall and severe morbidity. DCA may be a strong alternative to classical colo-anal anastomosis.

Delayed coloanal anastomosis as a stoma-sparing alternative to immediate coloanal anastomosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical trials have demonstrated favorable outcomes associated with trans-anal colonic pull-through for rectal resection followed by delayed coloanal anastomoses (DCA), resulting in a resurgence in popularity of the technique. This meta-analysis aims to review existing literature to evaluate the postoperative complications associated with DCA, and to make comparisons with immediate coloanal anastomoses (ICA) after colorectal resection to assess the suitability of DCA as an alternative form of surgical treatment.

METHODS

Medline and Embase databases were reviewed from inception until 31 July 2020 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Single-arm studies that involved patients undergoing DCA for benign or malignant causes were selected, and meta-analysis of proportions was conducted to determine the prevalence of postoperative complications following DCA. Comparative studies comparing postoperative outcomes between DCA and ICA were also included for comparative meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing DCA were significantly less likely to require diverting stoma construction as compared to ICA (odds ratio [OR] = 0.04; confidence interval [CI]: 0.02-0.07; P < 0.001). Overall postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.23-1.12; P = 0.09) and mortality (OR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.12-1.98; P = 0.32) was comparable between DCA and ICA groups. No significant differences in perioperative complications, such as anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.11-1.64; P = 0.21), postoperative ileus, pelvic abscesses, or sepsis, were noted between DCA and ICA.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows no differences in complications or functional outcomes between DCA and ICA. Pooled analysis expectedly revealed a lower rate of diverting stoma in patients undergoing DCA. DCA is thus a safe alternative to current surgical practices where avoidance of a stoma is desired.

[Chronic anastomotic leak after low rectal resection-an unsolved problem?]

There is no generally accepted definition of a chronic anastomotic leak, which often presents as a chronic sinus. The corresponding time interval required from primary anastomotic construction ranges from 2 months to 12 months. Between 2% and 16% of all patients develop this complication after low anterior rectal resection. Due to the heterogeneous presentation and configuration of chronic leaks there are no valid comparable data on how to manage this problem. A variety of therapeutic options are used, sometimes combined or additively. The choice of therapeutic option depends very much on the individual case. The following options are used: debridement of the persisting cavity/fistula system, wide deroofing of the cavity into the lumen, endosponge with vacuum, stent implantation, advancement flap with simultaneous drainage of the cavity, fibrin glue instillation and as a last resort a redo low anastomosis. The healing rate in the available literature is generally over 70%. In selected cases a stoma reversal can be done for persisting cavities (wide entry of the cavity into the neorectum, no relevant distal stenosis). Overall, the available poor to moderate evidence suggests that 70-85% of patients with a chronic anastomotic leak, defined as stoma reversal, are treated successfully; however, there is some concern of a relevant publication bias of the published data so that the results may be less impressive in the clinical reality.

Does oncological outcome differ between restorative and nonrestorative low anterior resection in patients with primary rectal cancer?

AIM

Nonrestorative low anterior resection (n-rLAR) (also known as low Hartmann's) is performed for rectal cancer when a poor functional outcome is anticipated or there have been problems when constructing the anastomosis. Compared with restorative LAR (rLAR), little oncological outcome data are available for n-rLAR. The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes between rLAR and n-rLAR for primary rectal cancer.

METHOD

This was a nationwide cross-sectional comparative study including all elective sphincter-saving LAR procedures for nonmetastatic primary rectal cancer performed in 2011 in 71 Dutch hospitals. Oncological outcomes of patients undergoing rLAR and n-rLAR were collected in 2015; the data were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the results compared using log-rank testing. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between the type of LAR and oncological outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 1197 patients were analysed, of whom 892 (75%) underwent rLAR and 305 (25%) underwent n-rLAR. The 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate was 3% after rLAR and 8% after n-rLAR (P < 0.001). The 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 77% (rLAR) vs 62% (n-rLAR) (P < 0.001) and 90% (rLAR) vs 75% (n-rLAR) (P < 0.001), respectively. In multivariable Cox analysis, n-rLAR was independently associated with a higher risk of LR (OR = 2.95) and worse overall survival (OR = 1.72).

CONCLUSION

This nationwide study revealed that n-rLAR for rectal cancer was associated with poorer oncological outcome than r-LAR. This is probably a noncausal relationship, and might reflect technical difficulties during low pelvic dissection in a subset of those patients, with oncological implications.