Safety and morbidity after ultra-low coloanal anastomoses: J-pouch vs end-to-end reconstruction

Side-to-end reanastomosis after low-anterior resection (STELAR): Outcomes, feasibility, and description of procedure performed by a gynecologic oncology service

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Low anterior rectosigmoid resection for a gynecologic disease is usually performed in concert with other procedures and can result in significant morbidity should anastomotic complication occur. This study examined surgical outcomes of side-to-end reanastomosis after low anterior resection (STELAR) performed by gynecologic oncology service.

METHODS

This is a case series examining consecutive patients who underwent STELAR for gynecologic indications by a single gynecologic oncology group from 2009 to 2018. Prospectively collected institutional surgical database was searched for STELAR, and standard descriptive statistics were used to describe intraoperative and postoperative complications specific to reanastomosis.

RESULTS

A total of 69 women underwent STELAR, with median age and body mass index of 54 years and 24 kg/m² , respectively. 63.8% of patients had ovarian cancer and 84.4% had stage III-IV disease. The median estimated blood loss was 875 ml. Four (5.8%) women underwent protective loop colostomy at the time of STELAR. Postoperatively, there was 1 (1.4%) case of abscess formation within 30 days and 1 (1.4%) case of anastomotic leak 5 weeks after STELAR that required reoperation and diversion. No cases of fistula were clinically identified.

CONCLUSION

Side-to-end reanastomosis may be a safe and feasible procedure to accomplish low rectosigmoid anastomosis in women with gynecologic disease.

Comparison of the colonic J-pouch versus straight (end-to-end) anastomosis following low anterior resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To evaluate comparative outcomes of straight (end-to-end) anastomosis versus colonic J-pouch anastomosis following anterior resection.

METHODS

A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all studies comparing straight (end-to-end) anastomosis versus J-pouch anastomosis were included. Anastomotic complications, post-operative complications, re-operation, mortality, and functional outcomes were the evaluated outcome parameters. Revman 5.3 was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies reporting a total number of 3293 patients who underwent straight anastomosis (n = 1581) or J-pouch (n = 1712) were included. Anastomotic leak and re-operation rates were significantly higher in the straight group compared to the J-pouch group [RD 0.03, P = 0.03] and [OR 1.87, P = 0.003], respectively. Stool frequency per 24 h at 6 months and 12 months was lower in the J-pouch group than the straight group [MD 2.13, P = 0.003] and [MD 1.44, P = 0.00001], respectively. In addition, the use of anti-diarrheal medication is lower at 12 months in the J-pouch group [MD 3.85, P = 0.03]. Moreover, the two groups showed comparable results regarding SSI, sepsis, paralytic ileus, anastomotic stricture formation, anastomotic bleeding, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

J-pouch anastomosis showed lower risk for anastomotic leak and re-operation. Furthermore, better functional outcomes such as stool frequency were achieved using the colonic J-pouch reconstruction over the conventional straight end-to-end anastomosis.

Impact of pelvic dimensions on anastomotic leak after anterior resection for patients with rectal cancer

AIM

The impact of pelvis on the development of anastomotic leak (AL) in rectal cancer (RC) patients who underwent anterior resection (AR) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of pelvic dimensions on the risk of AL.

METHODS

A total of 1058 RC patients undergoing AR from January 2013 to January 2016 were enrolled. Pelvimetric parameters were obtained using abdominopelvic computed tomography scans.

RESULTS

Univariate analyses showed that pelvic inlet, pelvic outlet, interspinous distance, and intertuberous distance were significantly associated with the risk for AL (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis confirmed that pelvic inlet and intertuberous distance were independent risk factors for AL (P < 0.05). Significant factors from multivariate analysis were assembled into the nomogram A (without pelvic dimensions) and nomogram B (with pelvic dimensions). The area under curve (AUC) of nomogram B was 0.72 (95% CI 0.67-0.77), which was better than the AUC of nomogram A (0.69, [95% CI 0.65-0.74]), but didn't reach a statistical significance (P = 0.199). Decision curve supported that nomogram B was better than nomogram A.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic dimensions, specifically pelvic inlet and intertuberous distance, seemed to be independent predictors for postoperative AL in RC patients. Pelvic inlet and intertuberous distance incorporated with preoperative radiotherapy, preoperative albumin, conversion, and tumor diameter in the nomogram might provide a clinical tool for predicting AL.

Baseline mortality-adjusted survival in colon cancer patients

BACKGROUND

This investigation assessed the baseline mortality-adjusted survival after colon cancer resection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In total, 523 patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon who underwent primary colon resection at Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Switzerland, between 1996 and 2008 were included.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 25 months for all patients and 39 months for those who survived until the end of the follow-up. The 5-year relative survival rate was 63.2 % (95 % CI 57.3-69.6 %), and the overall survival rate was 52 % (95 % CI 47.6-57.7 %). After curative resection of stage I-III colon cancer, 40 % of the observed deaths were cancer-related and 60 % reflected the baseline mortality. In stage I, the 5-year relative survival was 103.2 % (95 % CI 91.4-116.5 %) and was not different from a matched population (p = 0.820). In multivariate analysis, good general health and less advanced cancer stages were associated with better relative and overall survival rates. A more advanced age was associated with better relative survival, but worse overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of relative survival of patients exclusively with colon cancer revealed that prognosis of patients suffering from stage I colon cancer does not differ significantly from that of the general population. In more advanced stages, a relevant fraction of deaths is not cancer-related. As the stage determines a patient's survival, early diagnosis is crucial for prognosis.

Diverting ileostomy versus no diversion after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A prospective, randomized, multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

This study sought to determine whether a protective diverting ileostomy improves short-term outcomes in patients with rectal resection and colonic J-pouch reconstruction for low anastomoses. Criteria for the use of a proximal stoma in rectal resections with colonic J-pouch reconstruction have not been defined sufficiently.

METHODS

In a multicenter prospective study, rectal cancer patients with anastomoses below 8 cm treated with low anterior resection and colonic J-pouch were randomized to a defunctioning loop ileostomy or no ileostomy. The primary study endpoint was the rate of anastomotic leakage, and the secondary endpoints were surgical complications related to primary surgery, stoma, or stoma closure.

RESULTS

From 2004 to 2014, a total of 166 patients were randomized to 1 of the 2 study groups. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the overall leakage rate was 5.8% in the stoma group and 16.3% in the no stoma group (P = .0441). However, some patients were not treated according to randomization and only 70% of our patients with low anastomoses received a pouch. Therefore, we performed a second analysis as to actual treatment. In this analysis, as well, leakage rates (P = .044) and reoperation rates for leakage (P = .021) were significantly higher in patients without a stoma. In multivariate analysis, male gender (P = .0267) and the absence of a stoma (P = .0092) were significantly associated with anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSION

Defunctioning loop ileostomy should be fashioned in rectal cancer patients with anastomoses below 6 cm, particularly in male patients, even if reconstruction was done with a J-pouch.

Risk factors and predictive factors for anastomotic leakage after resection for colorectal cancer: reappraisal of the literature

Anastomotic leakage is a serious complication that can occur after colorectal surgery. Several risk factors for anastomotic leakage have been reported based on the findings of prospective and retrospective studies, including patient characteristics, the use of neoadjuvant therapy, the tumor location, intraoperative events, etc. However, as these risk factors affect each other, the statistical results have differed in each study. In addition, differences in surgical methods, including laparoscopy versus laparotomy or stapling anastomosis versus handsewn anastomosis, may influence the incidence of anastomotic leakage. This mini-review summarizes the results of reported papers to clarify the current evidence of risk factors for anastomotic leakage.

Comparison of Colonic J-pouch and Straight Coloanal anastomosis after Low Anterior Resection

Background

The tendency towards sphincter preserving for low rectal cancers with low anterior resection, has led to the technique of straight coloanal anastomosis (SCAA) or colonic J-pouch anal anastomosis (CPAA).

Objectives

The aim of our study was to compare functional outcomes, complication rates and quality of life (QoL) after LAR with either a straight or colonic J pouch anastomosis.

Patients and Methods

In 88 patients with rectal tumors located in lower third, who were candidate for LAR with coloanal anastomosis. They were divided for reconstruction using either SCAA (n= 47) or CPAA (n= 41) from January 2007 to May 2009. Functional results were assessed after closure of temporary loop ileostomy, 6 months postoperatively. Quality of life (QoL) was measured using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30.

Results

The two groups were matched for gender, age, and preoperative chemotherapy and radiotherapy. There were no significant differences between the SCAA and CPAA groups relative to anastomotic leakage. Among patients with CPAA, the mean of 24 hours bowel movements, daytime bowel movements, incontinence scores, and incidence of urgency were significantly lower than those in the SCAA group. Also, patients with a CPAA had a significantly better quality of life.

Conclusions

CPAA provided not only better functional results than SCAA, but also improved quality of life, thus may be the better choice.

Management and results of complications after anterior resection with colonic pouch reconstruction for rectal cancer

AIM

Colonic J-pouch reconstruction is widely carried out during low anterior resection. The aim of this observational study was to describe the complications and evaluate the results of adverse event management.

METHOD

A total of 128 patients underwent an elective anterior resection with colorectal or coloanal J-pouch reconstruction for primary rectal cancer between January 1997 and December 2008.

RESULTS

The overall mortality was 1.6%. Three (2.3%) patients developed pouch necrosis, one of whom died. The rate of anastomotic leakage was 11.7%. Other major complications included intra-abdominal abscess (3.1%), haemorrhage (0.8%) and abdominal dihiscence (0.8%). In all cases of anastomotic leakage, the pouch was salvaged, with 80% of patients undergoing surgical revision with relaparotomy and transanal suture. Patients with pouch necrosis underwent relaparotomy with removal of the pouch and a terminal colostomy. In all cases of intra-abdominal abscess without anastomotic leakage, radiologically controlled percutaneous drainage was carried out.

CONCLUSION

Anal function can usually be saved after anastomotic leakage by salvage surgery without increase in mortality.

Current developments for pelvic exenteration in gynecologic oncology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review aims to update new techniques of pelvic exenteration including minimal invasive surgery, and discuss other aspects of this radical surgery, including worldwide differences.

RECENT FINDINGS

Major advances are made since the first description of pelvic exenteration and the operation is still under evolution. Explorative laparoscopy prior to exenteration is a valuable alternative to laparotomy to elect candidates for pelvic exenteration. There are considerable differences with respect to indications, contraindications, preoperative staging and adjuvant therapy after exenteration in different countries. Advances in laparoscopic instruments also led to the laparoscopic exenteration. The main limiting step of the operation is urinary diversion. New techniques of laparoscopic-assisted and robotic-assisted techniques of urinary diversion have been reported that decrease the operation time. Vascularized muscle flaps are preferred by many surgeons to fill the empty pelvis and provide an acceptable vaginal reconstruction. J-pouch seems to be a safer technique than end-to-end coloanal anastomosis for bowel reconstruction. Developments in the bioengineering tissue for pelvic reconstruction are required.

SUMMARY

Laparoscopy has the advantages of decreased blood loss, improved convalescence, lower incidence of wound infection and incisional hernia, short recovery periods, rapid return of bowel function, better pain control and improved cosmetics compared with laparotomy for pelvic exenteration. Magnification and improved visualization permits en-bloc dissection of tumor and good anastomosis technique. New techniques of urinary diversion, orthotopic neobladder and coloanal are promising.