The clinical results of the Turnbull-Cutait delayed coloanal anastomosis: a systematic review

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Short stump and high anastomosis pull-through (SHiP) procedure for delayed coloanal anastomosis with no protective stoma for low rectal cancer

Despite advances in coloanal anastomosis techniques, satisfactory procedures completed without complications remain lacking. We investigated the effectiveness of our recently developed ‘Short stump and High anastomosis Pull-through’ (SHiP) procedure for delayed coloanal anastomosis without a stoma. In this retrospective study, we analysed functional outcomes, morbidity, and mortality rates and local recurrence of 37 patients treated using SHiP procedure, out of the 282 patients affected by rectal cancer treated in our institution between 2012 and 2020. The inclusion criterion was that the rectal cancer be located within 4 cm from the anal margin. One patient died of local and pulmonary recurrence after 6 years, one developed lung and liver metastases after 2 years, and one experienced local recurrence 2.5 years after surgery. No major leak, retraction, or ischaemia of the colonic stump occurred; the perioperative mortality rate was zero. Five patients (13.51%) had early complications. Stenosis of the anastomosis, which occurred in nine patients (24.3%), was the only long-term complication; only three (8.1%) were symptomatic and were treated with endoscopic dilation. The mean Wexner scores at 24 and 36 months were 8.3 and 8.1 points, respectively. At the 36-month check-up, six patients (24%) had major LARS, ten (40%) had minor LARS, and nine (36%) had no LARS. The functional results in terms of LARS were similar to those previously reported after immediate coloanal anastomosis with protective stoma. The SHiP procedure resulted in a drastic reduction in major complications, and none of the patients had a stoma.

Delayed coloanal anastomosis: an alternative option for restorative rectal cancer surgery after high-dose pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer

AIM

Restorative total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer after high-dose pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer has been reported to provide an unacceptable rate of pelvic sepsis. In a previous publication we proposed that delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) should be performed in this situation. The present study aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of this strategy.

METHOD

Between 2000 and 2018, 1094 men were operated on for rectal cancer in our institution. All men with T2/T3 mid and low rectal cancer with preoperative radiotherapy and restorative TME were considered for this study (n = 416). Patients with external-beam high-dose radiotherapy (EBHRT) for prostate cancer (70-78 Gy) were identified and compared with patients with conventional long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by TME. We compared our already published historical cohort (2000-2012), including arm A (CRT + TME; n = 236) and arm B (EBHRT + TME; n = 12), with our early cohort (2013-2018), including arm C (CRT + TME; n = 158) and arm D (EBHRT + TME-DCAA; n = 10). The end-points were morbidity, pelvic sepsis, reoperation rate and quality of the specimen.

RESULTS

Overall morbidity was not significantly different between groups. Pelvic sepsis decreased from 50% (arm B) to 10% (arm D) with the use of DCAA (P = 0.074), and was similar between arms A, C and D. Quality of the specimen was not significantly different between the four groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that TME with DCAA in patients with previous EBHRT is feasible, with the same postoperative pelvic sepsis rate as conventional CRT.

Turnbull-Cutait technique without ileostomy after total mesorectal excision is associated with acceptably low early post-operative morbidity

Background

This study aimed to compare the standard one‐stage coloanal anastomosis (CAA) technique plus diverting ileostomy and the Turnbull–Cutait (T–C) technique with delayed CAA in terms of early post‐operative morbidity in patients with low rectal cancer.

Methods

A total of 33 patients with non‐metastatic distal rectal cancer who were operated with one of the two different reconstruction methods (one‐stage CAA plus diverting ileostomy or two‐stage T–C technique with delayed CAA) after total mesorectal excision were included in this retrospective study. The two groups were compared for early post‐operative morbidity within 30 post‐operative days using complication frequency, Clavien–Dindo classification and Comprehensive Complication Index scores.

Results

The two groups did not differ in terms of morbidity parameters, including frequency of any morbidity, presence of grade 3b morbidity requiring management under general anaesthesia, as well as Comprehensive Complication Index score (P > 0.05 for all).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the two techniques did not differ in terms of early post‐operative morbidity. Owing to its comparable morbidity and safety to CAA plus concomitant ileostomy performed at the same session, the T–C technique may be considered in distal rectal cancer patients refusing to have a temporary stoma and in patients in whom CAA poses technical difficulties during the initial operation.

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

Importance

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

Objective

To compare 30-day postoperative and 1-year follow-up results of Turnbull-Cutait pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis and standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis after ultralow rectal resection for rectal cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Multicenter randomized clinical trial. Neither patients nor surgeons were blinded for technique. Patients were recruited in 3 centers, Bellvitge University Hospital and Valle d'Hebron University Hospital in Spain and Instituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G. Pascale-Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico in Italy. 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 or standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis associated with diverting ileostomy. Data were analyzed between June 2012 and October 2018.

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 and, after 6 to 10 days, the exteriorized colon was resected and a delayed hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis was performed. For patients assigned to standard coloanal anastomosis, the hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis was performed with diverting ileostomy at first operation. Closure of the ileostomy was planned after 6 to 8 months.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcome was 30-day postoperative morbidity. For the standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis with diverting ileostomy group, overall postoperative morbidity includes 30-day postoperative complications of the ileostomy closure.

Results

Ninety-two white patients, 72 men and 20 women, with a median age of 62 years, were randomized and included in the analysis. Forty-six patients received standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis with diverting ileostomy and 46 received the 2-stage pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis. Seven patients (15.2%) in the standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis group did not undergo reversal ileostomy, and 1 patient (2.2%) in the 2-stage pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis group did not undergo delayed coloanal anastomosis. The 30-day overall composite postoperative complications rate was similar between the 2 groups (34.8% in 2-stage pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis group vs 45.7% in standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis group; P = .40), with a difference of -10.9 (95% CI, -29.5 to 8.9).

Conclusions and Relevance

The 2-stage pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis after ultralow anterior resection for low rectal cancer is safe and does not increase the postoperative morbidity rate compared with standard coloanal anastomosis with covering ileostomy followed by ileostomy closure.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01766661.

Ultimate Stomaless Technique of Two-Stage Operation for Lower Rectal Cancer Performed on a Patient with a High Body Mass Index: The Reborn Operation (Novel Pull-Through Method)

A 58-year-old Japanese man, with a body mass index of 41.7 kg/m² (height: 179.8 cm; weight: 133.8 kg), underwent a laparoscopic pull-through procedure with delayed coloanal anastomosis performed in two surgical stages for lower rectal cancer. This method was selected because the volume of the abdominal wall was fairly thick and it would have been impossible to perform diverting ileostomy and colostomy, which are routinely conducted. First, a colonic pull-through segment of about 10 cm was left outside the anal canal without any tension and was fixed by sutures under indocyanine green fluorescence imaging (ICG FI). The second surgical stage was performed 10 days after the first operation under general anesthesia. Final coloanal anastomosis was performed with near-infrared light without diverting the stoma under ICG FI. The patient demonstrated a good postoperative course and was discharged from our hospital in remission 15 days after the latest operation. We could inspect the coloanal flow of the anastomosis under ICG FI before the reconstruction. This procedure was considered to be a standard method, but it was overtaken by new technology, ICG FI. This procedure is an ultimate stomaless surgery for ultralow rectal cancer that can be performed in selected cases, such as in patients with a high body mass index and with hope for stomaless operation.

Delayed Colo-anal Anastomosis for Rectal Cancer: Pelvic Morbidity, Functional Results and Oncological Outcomes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Delayed colo-anal anastomosis (DCAA) has received renewed interest thanks to its reduction in anastomotic leakage rate without the use of stoma to protect a low rectal anastomosis. The aim of this review was to summarize the available literature on DCAA following rectal cancer resection and to report clinical, oncological and functional results.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted including MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews through July 2018. The review was conducted according to MOOSE guidelines. Quality was appraised with the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) tool.

RESULTS

Eight observational studies (409 patients) were included. Average MINORS score was 9.6/14 in seven non-comparative studies and 17/22 in one comparative study. Six studies reported no anastomotic leak. Pelvic sepsis/abscess ranged from 0 to 25%. Mortality rate was <3% in seven studies and 12.5% in one. Poor fecal continence was reported in <30% of patients. Need for permanent stoma was ≤2% in six studies. A five-year survival rate ranged from 63.8 to 81% (four studies). Loco-regional recurrence rate ranged from 4.8 to 14.3% at 3 years (four studies) and from 6 to 38.8% at 5 years (three studies).

CONCLUSION

DCAA offers an alternative to primary straight colo-anal anastomosis for low rectal cancer. The benefits include reduced risk of anastomotic leakage and pelvic sepsis, and no need for protective ileostomy, with good functional and oncological outcomes. Results of ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing DCAA with straight colo-anal anastomosis and protective stoma are awaited to draw definitive conclusions.

Two-stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through coloanal anastomosis versus coloanal anastomosis with protective loop ileostomy for low rectal cancer. Protocol for a randomized controlled trial (Turnbull-BCN)

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine whether patients that underwent ultra-low rectal resection for cancer can benefit from the recently reintroduced two-stage Turnbull-Cutait abdominoperineal pull-through procedure.

METHODS

Patients with low rectal tumors undergoing radical sphincter-sparing resection are eligible for inclusion in a randomized multicenter study. Whether two-stage Turnbull-Cutait coloanal anastomosis provides significant benefits over hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis and associated lateral ileostomy in terms of postoperative morbidity is the primary endpoint. In addition, the study aims to assess secondary endpoints such as quality of life, fecal incontinence, and locoregional recurrence of the neoplasm. Patients with adenocarcinoma of the lower rectum diagnosed by rigid proctoscopy, with histological confirmation of malignancy, and who are candidates of rectal removal and coloanal anastomosis will be included in a randomized controlled and multicenter trial. Postoperative morbidity is defined as complications that occur within 30 days of the data of the second surgical procedure of the last patient included in the trial. Patients will be followed for a minimum period of 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The two-stage Turnbull-Cutait coloanal anastomosis may constitute an effective surgical alternative in the current approach to the treatment of low rectal cancer without the need of a temporary loop colostomy, preventing the wide range of complications related to stoma surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (trial number: NCT01766661). This trial is registered in January 10, 2013.

Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection: indications and results

Surgical treatment of distal rectal cancer has long been based only on abdominoperineal excision, resulting in a permanent stoma and not always offering a definitive local control. Sphincter saving surgery has emerged in the last 20 years and can be offered also to patients with low lying tumours, provided that the external sphincter is not involved by the disease. An intersphincteric resection (ISR) is based on the resection of the rectum with a distal dissection proceeding into the space between the internal and the external anal sphincter. Originally described as an open procedure, it has also been developed with the laparoscopic approach, and also this technically demanding procedure is inscribed among those offered to the patient by a minimally invasive surgery. Indications have to be strict and patient selection is crucial to obtain both oncological and functional optimal results. The level of distal dissection and the extent of internal sphincter resected are chosen according to the distal margin of the tumour and is based on MRI findings: accurate imaging is therefore mandatory to better define the surgical approach. We here present our actual indications for ISR, results in terms of operative time, median hospital stay for ISR in our experience and review the updated literature.

[Turnbull-cutait technique in low rectal cancer: Case report]

BACKGROUND

The surgical treatment for low rectal cancer involves an ultra-low anterior resection with complete mesorectal resection and coloanal anastomosis. Two-stage coloanal anastomosis such as the Turnbull-Cutait technique represents an option for patients with low rectal cancer.

CLINICAL CASE

A 69 year-old female patient with a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma (T2N1), located 4 cm from the anal margin. She received neoadjuvant radiotherapy. An ultra-low anterior resection and total resection of the mesorectum were performed. The intestinal transit was reconstructed by coloanal anastomosis using the Turnbull-Cutait technique.

CONCLUSION

Coloanal anastomosis with the Turnbull-Cutait technique represents a primary option for patients with low rectal cancer, avoiding a loop ileostomy, its economic impact and on their quality of life.

Anastomotic salvage after rectal cancer resection using the Turnbull-Cutait delayed anastomosis

BACKGROUND

Turnbull-Cutait abdominoperineal pull-through followed by delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCA) was first described in 1961. Studies have described its use for challenging colorectal conditions. We reviewed our experience with Turnbull-Cutait DCA as a salvage procedure for complex failure of colorectal anastomosis.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study from October 2010 to September 2011, with analysis of postoperative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Seven DCAs were performed for anastomotic complications (3 chronic leaks, 2 rectovaginal fistulas, 1 colovesical fistula, 1 colonic ischemia) following surgery for rectal cancer. Six patients had a diverting ileostomy constructed as part of previous treatment for anastomotic complications before the salvage procedure. No anastomotic leaks were observed. All procedures but 1 were completed successfully. One patient who underwent DCA subsequently required an abdominoperineal resection and a permanent colostomy for postoperative extensive colonic ischemia. No 30-day mortality occurred.

CONCLUSION

Salvage Turnbull-Cutait DCA appears to be a safe procedure and could be offered to patients with complex anastomotic complications. This procedure could be added to the surgeon's armamentarium as an alternative to the creation of a permanent stoma.