Hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis for distal rectal cancer: long-term clinical outcomes

Surgical management of recto-vaginal fistula (about 6 cases)

Introduction

Recto-vaginal fistula (RVF) is defined as a pathological epithelialized communication between the posterior wall of the vagina and the anterior wall of the rectum through the recto-vaginal septum. RVFs are rare and represent less than 5% of rectal fistulas. Occurring after childbirth or during a proctological pathology, they create a deep distress for the patients. The aim of our work is to analyze the epidemiological particularities and the risk factors of occurrence of RVF as well as the modalities and results of our therapeutic management.

Materials and methods

Our work is retrospective analytic and comparative concerning 6 cases operated in the department of general surgery 3 of the UHC Ibn Rochd of Casablanca for recto vaginal fistula or recidive over a period of 7 years from 2012 to 2018.

Results

The analysis of the results of our study allowed us to note: A frequency of occurrence of RVF of about 0.48%. The average age at diagnosis was 55 in our patients. The etiologies were dominated by post-radiation (33.33%) and post-operative (16.66%) RVFs. The predominant mode of delivery in our study was vaginal delivery (83.33%). The antecedents were dominated by pelvic irradiation in 50% of patients, and pelvic surgery for cervical cancer and/or rectal cancer (50%). The diagnosis was revealed by a vaginal stool output in all patients. Surgical treatment was performed in all our patients. The surgical technique of choice in our series was drainage by Stenon, in 83.33% of patients. A protective stoma was performed in all our patients studied, a colostomy in 66.66%, and an ileostomy in 33.33% of patients. The immediate postoperative evolution was excellent in all our patients, while the short- and medium-term evolution revealed the occurrence of recurrence in one third of the patients (33.33%). The treatment of choice for recurrence was the interposition of a pedicled fat flap of the labia majora, known as the modified Martius technique. The morbidity, represented mainly by recurrence, was 25%, with a mortality rate of 0%.

Discussion

The occurrence of RVF in all its etiologies seems to be infrequent. However, its real incidence remains poorly documented in the literature, it varies between 0.3% and 15.3%. RVFs are considered simple or complex depending on their size, location and etiology. The high or low location and the etiology of the RVF determine the choice of the approach during surgical management. The diagnosis is most often clinical. The examination will try to find the cause of the RVF and the associated lesions. RVF can be asymptomatic. The importance of the symptoms depends on the topography of the fistula, the diameter of the orifice, and the quality of the intestinal transit. No additional investigations are required to confirm the diagnosis of RVF, since the positive diagnosis is essentially clinical. However, in the case of a high or complex fistula, the clinician can support his or her pre-therapeutic assessment with the exploration of imaging data, especially those of the digestive opacification, MRI and pelvic CT. The causes of RVFs are multiple. However, their proportions are difficult to establish. Post-obstetrical RVFs, those due to Crohn's disease, and post-op are probably the most frequent. The literature describes a variety of surgical approaches and treatment options for RVF. However, there are no treatment recommendations. The available data are vague and do not define an optimal treatment. Medical treatment with antibiotics and sitz baths is often necessary to control the local infection. The surgical management of RVFs is complex and follows several principles. The therapeutic arsenal is very varied and constitutes a real “escalation”, ranging from simple drainage by suture to the radical treatment represented by abdominal-pelvic amputation. The results of the treatment of simple VF are excellent in all studies. The healing rate varies from 75 to 100% depending on the authors.

Conclusion

The results of this study confirm the low incidence of RVF, and show that vaginal delivery and a history of pelvic surgery (for rectal or cervical cancer) are the most frequent predictors of RVF. Thus, from a therapeutic point of view, medical treatment is always required, it allows the flow of the fistula to be reduced, which facilitates preparation for the surgical procedure.

•

RVFs are rare and represent less than 5% of rectal fistulas

•

The aim of our work is to analyze the epidemiological particularities and the risk factors of occurrence of RVF as well as the modalities and results of our therapeutic management.

•

The surgical management of RVFs is complex

Critical surgical errors by junior fellows and trainees in low rectal cancer surgery: How to overcome?(A cross-sectional study)

Aim

Technical difficulties are usually reported in low rectal cancer (LRC) surgery. Moreover inadvertent surgical errors could happen mostly due to lack of experience of the assisting surgeons. Unfortunately, these errors may end up with raising a permanent stoma. In this study we are reporting seven inadvertent surgical mishaps during surgeries for LRC which resulted in failure of the planned circular end to end anastomosis and how we approached them by different salvage techniques.

Patients and methods

All surgical mistakes were salvaged by two of our senior consultants with intraoperative decision to shift to another approach to attain intestinal continuity. Two patients had direct handswen coloanal anastomosis, three received colon pull through and two with redo stapled circular end to end anastomosis after shifting to the anterior perineal plane. Postoperative assessment of the functional state using wexner score was done for all cases.

Results

All surgical mistakes had been overcomed after shifting to the transanal and/or perineal approach and we were able to regain intestinal continuity in all cases Circumferential and distal margins were free in all specimens. Two patients showed optimal continence with wexner score 3,5 respectively, Two had suboptimal continence Wexner 6,7. Female patient with iatrogenic rectovaginal fistula suffered from poor quality of life and asked for permanent stoma.

Conclusion

All trainees and junior fellows in should receive a clearly defined training program and focused education with different staplers; additionally they should work under supervision of the senior consultants who should be sufficiently experienced with different salvage approaches.

•

Low rectal cancer surgery is demanding even in the hands of experienced colorectal surgeons.

•

Inadvertent surgical errors could happen due to lack of experience of the assisting surgeons.

•

Salvage procedures may be the key to restore intestinal continuity.

•

All trainees and junior fellows in colorectal units should receive a clearly defined training programs.

Outcomes of ultra-low anterior resection combined with or without intersphincteric resection in lower rectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

We evaluated the current practice of ultra-low anterior resection (uLAR) in patients with lower rectal cancer and compared uLARs using mostly transabdominal approach with or without intersphincteric resection (ISR).

METHODS

A total of 624 consecutive lower rectal cancer patients undergoing curative uLAR were prospectively enrolled as ISR+ vs. ISR- groups (329 vs. 295 patients) between 2005 and 2012. The ISR+ group additionally received levator-sphincter reinforcement after distal resection.

RESULTS

The circumferential resection margin (CRM) + rate (≤1 mm) was 2.1 % in the two groups. Postoperative ileus occurred more in the ISR- group than in the ISR+ group (p = 0.02). Substantial erectile dysfunction occurred 1.8 times more frequently in the ISR- group than in the ISR+ group (32 vs. 18.1 %; p = 0.01) among male patients at 2 years postoperatively. The urge to defecate volume and maximal tolerance volume, closely correlated with maximal squeezing pressure and/or mean resting pressure, did not differ between patients with and without chemoradiotherapy until 24 months postoperatively. Nevertheless, the urge to defecate volume was lesser in the ISR- group than in the ISR+ group at 24 months postoperatively (p = 0.022). For 301 patients in which >5 years had elapsed postoperatively, the mean 5-year local recurrence rate was 4.3 %, and the 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates were 78.9 and 92 %, respectively, without differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with uLAR without ISR, the transabdominal ISR with levator-sphincter reinforcement provides a safe resection plane with competent CRM, concurrently reduces substantial complications, and marginally promotes recovery of neorectal function.

Update and debate issues in surgical treatment of middle and low rectal cancer

Based on a review of the literature, this paper provides an update on surgical treatment of middle and low rectal cancer and discusses issues of debate surrounding that treatment. The main goal of the surgical treatment of rectal cancer is radical resection of the tumor and surrounding lymphatic tissue. Local excision of early rectal cancer can be another treatment option, in which the patient can avoid possible complications related to radical surgery. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) has been recommended for patients with cT3-4N0 or any T N+ rectal cancer because CRT shows better local control and less toxicity than adjuvant CRT. However, recent clinical trials showed promising results for local excision after neoadjuvant CRT in selected patients with low rectal cancer. In addition, the "wait and see" concept is another modality that has been reported for the management of tumors that show complete clinical remission after neoadjuvant CRT. Although radical surgery for middle and low rectal cancer is the cornerstone therapy, an ultralow anterior resection with or without intersphincteric resection (ISR) has become an alternative standard surgical method for selected patients. Many studies have reported on the oncological safety of the ISR, but few of them have addressed the issue the functional outcome. Furthermore, an abdominoperineal resection (APR) has problems with high rates of tumor perforations and positive circumferential resection margins, and those factors have contributed to its having a high rate of local recurrence and a poor survival rate for rectal cancer compared with sphincter-saving procedures. Recently, great efforts have been made to reduce these problems, and the total levator excision or the extended APR concept has emerged. Surgical management for low rectal cancer should aim to radically excise the tumor and to preserve as much of the sphincter function as possible by using multidisciplinary approaches. However, further prospective clinical trials are needed for tailored treatment of rectal cancer patients.

External coloanal anastomosis without covering stoma in low-lying rectal cancer

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and functional outcome of external coloanal anastomosis without covering stoma in treating low-lying rectal cancer. All patients undergoing the coloanal anastomosis for low lying rectal carcer in the Department of General Surgery, Minia University Hospital, between May 2006 and May 2009 were included. Seventy two patients underwent coloanal anastomosis, and follow up was available for all patients. Mean follow up period was 12.6 ± 4.7 months. Postoperatively, fecal continence was normal in 84.7% of patients. Postoperative complications included anastomotic fistula in 3 patients (4.2%) and anastomotic stenosis in 6 patients (8.3%). There was no effect of pre or postoperative adjuvant therapy on the procedure outcome. There was no local recurrence during follow up period. Three patients died at the end of follow up period due to distant metastasis. In treatment of low-lying rectal cancer, abdominoperineal resection should be avoided if coloanal anastomosis provides similar control of the disease as it is safe and has good functional results and acceptable complication rate.

Multidisciplinary management of patients with advanced rectal cancer

The chance of lymph node involvement in T(3) and T(4) rectal cancers is 20% to 60%, a risk sufficiently high that most clinicians favor mesorectal excision rather than less aggressive approaches. Patients who have a complete clinical response of the primary lesions to neoadjuvant therapy may represent a special case. Total mesorectal excision can be accomplished without sacrifice of the anal sphincters, and continence can be preserved. Evolving understanding of patterns of tumor spread and mechanisms of anal continence have resulted in increased use of continence-preserving procedures. Removal of the anal sphincters seems to be advantageous only if the sphincters are directly involved. A few small series suggest that a segmental sphincter resection could result in good local control and continence preservation, even if the sphincters are involved. Areas of controversy currently include the role of neoadjuvant therapy for high rectal lesions, the role of lateral lymph node dissection, and methods of improving anal continence after rectal resection.

Analysis of anal sphincter preservation rate according to tumor level and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer patients

The anal sphincter preservation rate (ASPR) according to tumor level and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherpy (CRT) has not been fully evaluated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the tumor level, neoadjuvant CRT, and the ASPR in rectal cancer patients. We studied 544 patients (tumor level, 0-6 cm) who underwent curative resection for rectal cancer between 1991 and 2005. Patients were divided six into groups according to tumor level over 1-cm intervals, and the ASPR was evaluated in patients with and without neoadjuvant CRT according to tumor level. Sphincter preservation surgery was performed in 191 patients, and 86 patents underwent neoadjuvant CRT. The overall ASPR was 43.0% (37/86) in patients with neoadjuvant CRT and 33.6% (154/458) in patients without neoadjuvant CRT (P=0.094). In an analysis according to tumor level, the ASPR was 0.0 vs 0.0% in <or=1 cm, 0.0 vs 2.1% in 1<or=2 cm (P=0.589), 11.8 vs 16.8% in 2<or=3 cm (P=0.599), 55.6 vs 20.2% in 3<or=4 cm (P=0.001), 57.7 vs 45.9% in 4<or=5 cm (P=0.227), and 66.7 vs 69.5% in 5<or=6 cm (P=0.827). Neoadjuvant CRT did not increase the ASPR in tumor level within <or=6 cm. However, for the tumor level (3<or=4 cm), neoadjuvant CRT significantly increased the ASPR.