The fate of preserved sphincter in rectal cancer patients

Predictors for temporary stomas non-closure among non-metastatic rectal cancer patients undergoing curative resection: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

The primary treatment for non-metastatic rectal cancer is curative resection. However, sphincter-preserving surgery may lead to complications. This study aims to develop a predictive model for stoma non-closure in rectal cancer patients who underwent curative-intent low anterior resection.

METHODS

Consecutive patients diagnosed with non-metastatic rectal cancer between January 2005 and December 2017, who underwent low anterior resection, were retrospectively included in the Chang Gung Memorial Foundation Institutional Review Board. A comprehensive evaluation and analysis of potential risk factors linked to stoma non-closure were performed.

RESULTS

Out of 956 patients with temporary stomas, 10.3% (n = 103) experienced non-closure primarily due to cancer recurrence and anastomosis-related issues. Through multivariate analysis, several preoperative risk factors significantly associated with stoma non-closure were identified, including advanced age, anastomotic leakage, positive nodal status, high preoperative CEA levels, lower rectal cancer presence, margin involvement, and an eGFR below 30 mL/min/1.73m2. A risk assessment model achieved an AUC of 0.724, with a cutoff of 2.5, 84.5% sensitivity, and 51.4% specificity. Importantly, the non-closure rate could rise to 16.6% when more than two risk factors were present, starkly contrasting the 3.7% non-closure rate observed in cases with a risk score of 2 or below (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Prognostic risk factors associated with the non-closure of a temporary stoma include advanced age, symptomatic anastomotic leakage, nodal status, high CEA levels, margin involvement, and an eGFR below 30 mL/min/1.73m2. Hence, it is crucial for surgeons to evaluate these factors and provide patients with a comprehensive prognosis before undergoing surgical intervention.

Sex Disparities in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An In-Depth Analysis of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes

Anatomical and physiological differences exist between sex, leading to variations in how diseases, such as rectal cancer, are prevalence and treatment outcomes of diseases including rectal cancer. In particular, in the case of rectal cancer, anatomical differences may be associated with surgical challenges, and these factors are believed to be important contributors to potential disparities in postoperative recovery, associated complications, and oncological outcomes between male and female patients. However, there is still ongoing debate regarding this matter. Significantly, the male pelvic anatomy is distinguished by its narrower dimensions, which can present surgical challenges and impede visual access during operative procedures, rendering it more complex than surgical interventions in the female pelvis. As a result, this anatomical difference leads to a greater occurrence of postoperative complications, such as anastomotic leakage. Moreover, the pelvis houses nerves that are vital for urinary and genital functions, underscoring the need to assess the potential risks of sexual and urinary dysfunction in rectal cancer surgery. These postoperative complications can significantly impact the quality of life; therefore, it is imperative to perform surgery with an understanding of the structural differences between sexes. Therefore, to address the limitations imposed by anatomical structures, new approaches such as robotic surgery, trans-anal total mesorectal excision, and intraoperative neuromonitoring are being introduced. Furthermore, it is essential to conduct research into fundamental mechanisms that may give rise to differences in surgical outcomes and oncological results between sexes. By comprehending the disparities between males and females, we can advance toward personalized treatments. Consequently, this review outlines variations in surgical approaches, complications, and treatments for rectal cancer in male and female patients.

Permanent stoma after sphincter preservation for rectal cancer. A situation that occurs more often than you might think

Objectives

This study aimed: (i) to assess the cumulative incidence of permanent stoma (PS) after sphincter-preserving surgery (SPS) for rectal cancer (RC): (ii) to analyze associated risk factors for primary and secondary PS; and (iii) to compare the long-term survival of patients according to the stoma state.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective single-center cohort study based on a prospectively maintained database of SRC patients undergoing SPS from January 2007 to December 2017. Incidence of both primary (no reversal of defunctioning stoma) and secondary (created after closure of defunctioning stoma) PS were investigated. Associations between potential risk factors and PS were analyzed using a logistic regression model. Cumulative survival curve was drawn by Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

Of the 257 eligible patients, 43 patients (16.7%) had a PS (16 primary PS and 27 secondary PS) after a median follow-up of 4.8 years. In multivariate analysis, the independent risk factors for primary PS were severe post-operative complications (OR 3.66; 95% CI, 1.19-11.20, p=0.022), and old age (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.04-1.18, p=0.001) and those for secondary PS were local recurrence (OR 38.07; 95% CI 11.07-130.9, p<0.0001), anastomotic leakage (OR 7.01; 95% CI, 2.23-22.04, p=0.009), and severe post-operative complications (OR 3.67; 95% CI, 1.22-11.04, p=0.02), respectively. Both overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were significantly lower in patients with a PS compared with patients with SPS (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

This present study suggests that one out of 6 patients has a PS, 5 years after rectal resection with SPS for SRC.

The impact of postoperative complications severity on stoma reversal following sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Currently, the relationship between temporary stoma reversal and the severity of postoperative complications (POCs) after the index surgery based on the Clavien-Dindo classification has not yet been explored.

METHODS

From July 2010 to June 2016, 380 patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer with a temporary stoma in our hospital were included. Temporary stoma nonclosure rates, disease-free survival rates, and overall survival rates were estimated utilizing the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Of all the 380 patients, primary stomas were created in 335 patients and secondary stomas in 45 patients. After the index surgery, 36.6% (139/380) of patients developed at least one postoperative complication. In the first analysis, which included all the patients, 24.7% of temporary stomas remained unclosed. In the second analysis for 335 patients with a primary stoma, 23.3% were left with unclosed stomas. After the COX regression analysis, both major POCs and minor POCs were found to be independent risk factors for the permanent stoma, and there was an increasing tendency toward the risk of permanent stoma with the increase in POC severity.

CONCLUSION

POCs are independent predictors of permanent stoma after rectal cancer surgery. Even minor POCs may affect the outcome, while there is a clear direct relationship between POC severity and permanent stoma rates.

Effects of Evidence-Based Continuing Care Bundle on Health Outcomes in Rectal Cancer Patients With Temporary Stomas: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The patients with temporary stomas after anterior resection for rectal cancer may experience significant impact on their health outcomes, and hence continuing care is necessary and important for these patients. However, the effects of some single continuing care interventions remain unclear. Continuing care bundle may be an effective approach to address this uncertainty.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of an evidence-based continuing care bundle on selected health outcomes in patients with temporary stomas after anterior resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. A total of 124 patients with temporary stomas after anterior resection for rectal cancer were recruited from 4 general tertiary hospitals in Guangzhou, China, and were randomly assigned to a control group or an intervention group. Both groups received usual care, whereas the intervention group additionally received evidence-based continuing care bundle. Self-efficacy, quality of life, and stoma-related complications were collected at baseline and 4 and 12 weeks after surgery. Satisfaction and outcomes of stoma reversal were collected at the end of the observation.

RESULTS

The intervention group had significantly improved the self-efficacy (F = 11.88, P = .001), quality of life (F = 17.99, P < .001) over time, satisfaction (t = 4.08, P < .001), and outcomes of stoma reversal (χ2 = 5.93, P = .015) and reduced the incidence of complications (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based continuing care bundle can be an effective method to improve the health outcomes among these patients.

IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE

By using the evidence-based continuing care bundle, nurses can help these patients improve their health outcomes in stoma-specific nursing.

Transanal total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a case-matched study comparing TaTME versus standard laparoscopic TME

Background

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is emerging as a novel alternative to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME). The aim of this study was to compare clinical and pathological results from these two techniques in patients undergoing rectal resections because of low rectal cancer.

Materials and methods

Thirty-five patients undergoing TaTME were matched with 35 patients operated on using LaTME. Composite primary endpoint (complete TME, negative circumferential resection margin [pCRM], and distal resection margin [pDRM]) was used to assess pathological quality specimens. Secondary outcomes included operative and postoperative parameters (operative time, total blood loss, postoperative morbidity, length of stay, 30-day mortality).

Results

Composite primary endpoint was achieved by 85% of subjects in the TaTME group and 82% of subjects in the LaTME group (P=0.66). Mean pCRM was 1.1±1.29 vs 0.99±0.78 mm (P=0.25). Distal pDRM was 1.57±0.92 and 1.98±1.22 cm (P=0.15). In the TaTME and LaTME groups, respectively, complete mesorectal excision was achieved in 89% and 83% of subjects, while excision was nearly complete for the remaining 11% and 17% (P=0.23).

Conclusion

TaTME appears to be a noninferior alternative to laparoscopic surgery. TaTME allows for quality retrieval of surgical specimens with comparable clinical outcomes with LaTME.