Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials on the treatment of low anterior resection syndrome

Treatment of anterior resection syndrome: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There has been a lack of research comparing the efficacy of various treatments for low anterior resection syndrome (LARS).

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search across six electronic databases and a paired meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the interventions. Furthermore, a network meta-analysis was utilized to compare the efficacy of different treatments for LARS.

RESULTS

This study encompassed nine randomized controlled trials, involving a total of 450 patients. Compared to routine care, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (follow-up<3 months) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (3 months ≤ follow-up <6 months) were effective in reducing the LARS score. Pelvic floor rehabilitation (follow-up≤3 months) was effective in decreasing daily number of bowel movements when compared to routine care. The network meta-analysis indicated that 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (follow-up<3 months) were the most effective in reducing both the LARS score and the daily number of bowel movements. Transanal irrigation (3 months ≤ follow-up ≤ 12 months) was most effective in reducing the LARS score. Additionally, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists demonstrated relative efficacy in improving patients' quality of life (follow-up ≤ 1 month).

CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and anal irrigation show significant promise in the treatment of LARS. Nevertheless, the contributions of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation and pelvic floor rehabilitation to LARS treatment should not be overlooked. Given the clinical heterogeneity observed among the studies, the results should be interpreted with caution.

Outcomes of Early Versus Standard Closure of Diverting Ileostomy After Proctectomy: Meta-analysis and Meta-regression Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare outcomes of early and standard closure of diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) after proctectomy and determine risk factors for anastomotic leak (AL) and complications.

BACKGROUND

Formation of DLI has been a routine practice after proctectomy to decrease the incidence and potential adverse sequela of AL.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared outcomes of early versus standard closure of DLI after proctectomy. Main outcome measures were postoperative complications, AL, ileus, surgical site infection, reoperation, readmission, and hospital stay following DLI closure.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs (932 patients; 57% male) were included. Early closure group included 474 patients and standard closure 458 patients. Early closure was associated with higher odds of AL [odds ratio (OR): 2.315, P =0.013] and similar odds of complications (OR: 1.103, P =0.667), ileus (OR: 1.307, P =0.438), surgical site infection (OR: 1.668, P =0.079), reoperation (OR: 1.896, P =0.062), and readmission (OR: 3.431, P =0.206). Hospital stay was similar (weighted mean difference: 1.054, P =0.237). Early closure had higher odds of AL than standard closure when early closure was done ≤2 weeks (OR: 2.12, P =0.047) but not within 3 to 4 weeks (OR: 2.98, P =0.107). Factors significantly associated with complications after early closure were diabetes mellitus, smoking, and closure of DLI ≤2 weeks, whereas factors associated with AL were ≥ American Society of Anesthesiologists II classification and diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSIONS

Early closure of DLI after proctectomy has a higher risk of AL, particularly within 2 weeks of DLI formation. On the basis of this study, routine early ileostomy closure cannot be recommended.

Preventative strategies for low anterior resection syndrome

BACKGROUND

A common and debilitating complication of low anterior resection for rectal cancer is low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). As a multifactorial entity, LARS is poorly understood and challenging to treat. Despite this, prevention strategies are commonly overlooked. Our aim was to review the pathophysiology of LARS and explore current evidence on the efficacy and feasibility of prophylactic techniques.

METHODS

A literature review was performed between [1st January 2000 to 1st October 2023] for studies which investigated preventative interventions for LARS. Mechanisms by which LARS develop are described, followed by a review of prophylactic strategies to prevent LARS. Medline, Cochrane, and PubMed databases were searched, 189 articles screened, 8 duplicates removed and 18 studies reviewed.

RESULTS

Colonic dysmotility, anal sphincter dysfunction and neorectal dysfunction all contribute to the development of LARS, with the complex mechanism of defecation interrupted by surgery. Transanal irrigation (TAI) and pelvic floor rehabilitation (PFR) have shown benefits in preventing LARS, but may be limited by patient compliance. Intraoperative nerve monitoring (IONM) and robotic-assisted surgery have shown some promise in surgically preventing LARS. Nerve stimulation and other novel strategies currently used in treatment of LARS have yet to be investigated in their roles prophylactically.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, there is a limited evidence base for all preventative strategies including IONM, RAS, PFP and TAI. These strategies are limited by either access (IONM, RAS and PFP) or acceptability (PFP and TAI), which are both key to the success of any intervention. The results of ongoing trials will serve to assess acceptability, while technological advancement may improve access to some of the aforementioned strategies.

Bibliometric analysis and visualization of research trends in total mesorectal excision in the past twenty years

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer leads a major disease burden worldwide. Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard treatment for locally advanced or node-positive rectal cancer, while attempts to improve the surgery such as laparoscopic and transanal TME are widely used but have their inherent limitations. This bibliometric study analyzed research trends, cooperation, and knowledge dissemination on TME over the past 20 years to inform future directions.

METHODS

Relevant literature from 2003 to 2023 was extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection and analyzed with VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and R for publication patterns, countries, institutions, authors, and research hotspots.

RESULTS

Five thousand three hundred forty-five related publications were included, with rising annual output and citations. The US and China contributed the most studies, while the Netherlands had greater influence. Leiden University ranked first in publications. The top authors were Heald, Kapiteijn, Sauer, Nagtegaal, and Peeters. Research shifted from cancer-focused to patient-centered care and from radiotherapy/chemotherapy to advanced surgery. Multicenter trials became more common.

CONCLUSION

Although the United States and China have the largest number of publications, it should be noted that the influence of these two countries in the field of TME research is not the highest, which does not match the number of publications. In addition, telemedicine, interdisciplinary, medical-industrial integration, etc. may be potential directions for future research in the field of TME.