Management of rectal stump leak following emergency Hartmann’s procedure

The complication profile of low Hartmann's in rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-restorative options for low rectal cancer not invading the sphincter includes low Hartmann's procedure (LH) and inter-sphincteric abdominoperineal resection (ISAPR). There is currently little comparative data to differentiate these options.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the peri-operative morbidity of LH, and then to compare it to that of ISAPR.

DATA SOURCES

An up-to-date systematic review was performed on the available literature between 2000-2020 on PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies reporting on non-restorative surgeries for rectal cancer were analysed. Outcomes were firstly analysed between LH and non-LH groups, with further sub-analysis comparing the LH and ISAPR groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The main outcome measures were the rates of pelvic sepsis, rates of overall post-operative complication rates, oncological outcomes, and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 12 observational studies were included. There were 3526 patients (61.1%) in the LH group, and 2238 patients (38.9%) in the non-LH group, which included 461 patients who underwent ISAPR. The LH group had a higher rate of pelvic sepsis as compared to the non-LH group (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.39-2.29, P < 0.001). The difference is more marked in the sub-analysis comparing LH and ISAPR alone (OR: 3.94, 95% CI: 1.88-7.84, P < 0.01) corresponding to a higher rate of unplanned re-intervention. LH was associated with a higher rate of short-term post-operative mortality as compared to the non-LH group.

CONCLUSION

ISAPR is the preferred option for non-restorative rectal surgery, with a more favourable peri-operative morbidity and short-term mortality profile as compared to LH.

Subtotal colectomy in ulcerative colitis—long term considerations for the rectal stump

BACKGROUND

The initial operation of choice in many patients presenting as an emergency with ulcerative colitis is a subtotal colectomy with end ileostomy. A percentage of patients do not proceed to completion proctectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis.

AIM

To review the existing literature in relation to the significant long-term complic-ations associated with the rectal stump, to provide an overview of options for the surgical management of remnant rectum and anal canal and to form a consolidated guideline on endoscopic screening recommendations in this cohort.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines for papers containing recommendations for endoscopy surveillance in rectal remnants in ulcerative colitis. A secondary narrative review was carried out exploring the medical and surgical management options for the retained rectum.

RESULTS

For rectal stump surveillance guidelines, 20% recommended an interval of 6 mo to a year, 50% recommended yearly surveillance 10% recommended 2 yearly surveillance and the remaining 30% recommended risk stratification of patients and different screening intervals based on this. All studies agreed surveillance should be carried out via endoscopy and biopsy. Increased vigilance is needed in endoscopy in these patients. Literature review revealed a number of options for surgical management of the remnant rectum.

CONCLUSION

The retained rectal stump needs to be surveyed endoscopically according to risk stratification. Great care must be taken to avoid rectal perforation and pelvic sepsis at time of endoscopy. If completion proctectomy is indicated the authors favour removal of the anal canal using an intersphincteric dissection technique.