Close rectal dissection in benign diseases of the rectum: A review

Transanal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of technical approaches and clinical outcomes

PURPOSE

Transanal minimally invasive surgery has theoretical advantages for ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery. We performed a systematic review assessing technical approaches to transanal IPAA (Ta-IPAA) and meta-analysis comparing outcomes to transabdominal (abd-IPAA) approaches.

METHODS

Three databases were searched for articles investigating Ta-IPAA outcomes. Primary outcome was anastomotic leak rate. Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, post operative morbidity, and length of stay (LoS). Staging, plane of dissection, anastomosis, extraction site, operative time, and functional outcomes were also assessed.

RESULTS

Searches identified 13 studies with 404 unique Ta-IPAA and 563 abd-IPAA patients. Anastomotic leak rates were 6.3% and 8.4% (RD 0, 95% CI -0.066 to 0.065, p = 0.989) and conversion rates 2.5% and 12.5% (RD -0.106, 95% CI -0.155 to -0.057, p = 0.104) for Ta-IPAA and abd-IPAA. Average LoS was one day shorter (MD -1, 95% CI -1.876 to 0.302, p = 0.007). A three-stage approach was most common (47.6%), operative time was 261(± 60) mins, and total mesorectal excision and close rectal dissection were equally used (49.5% vs 50.5%). Functional outcomes were similar. Lack of randomised control trials, case-matched series, and significant study heterogeneity limited analysis, resulting in low to very low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis demonstrated the feasibility and safety of Ta-IPAA with reduced LoS, trend towards less conversions, and comparable anastomotic leak rates and post operative morbidity. Though results are encouraging, they need to be interpreted with heterogeneity and selection bias in mind. Robust randomised clinical trials are warranted to adequately compare ta-IPAA to transabdominal approaches.

Long-term outcomes after close rectal dissection and total mesorectal excision in ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

During ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery for ulcerative colitis (UC), rectal dissection can be performed via close rectal dissection (CRD) or in a total mesorectal excision plane (TME). Although CRD should protect autonomic nerve function, this technique may be more challenging than TME. The aim of this study was to compare long-term outcomes of patients undergoing CRD and TME.

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients who underwent IPAA surgery for UC between January 2002 and October 2017. Primary outcomes were chronic pouch failure (PF) among patients who underwent CRD and TME and the association between CRD and developing chronic PF. Chronic PF was defined as a pouch-related complication occurring ≥ 3 months after primary IPAA surgery requiring redo pouch surgery, pouch excision or permanent defunctioning ileostomy. Secondary outcomes were risk factors and causes for chronic PF. Pouch function and quality of life were assessed via the Pouch dysfunction score and Cleveland global quality of life score.

RESULTS

Out of 289 patients (155 males, median age 37 years [interquartile range 26.5-45.5 years]), 128 underwent CRD. There was a shorter median postoperative follow-up for CRD patients than for TME patients (3.7 vs 10.9 years, p < 0.01). Chronic PF occurred in 6 (4.7%) CRD patients and 20 (12.4%) TME patients. The failure-free pouch survival rate 3 years after IPAA surgery was comparable among CRD and TME patients (96.1% vs. 93.5%, p = 0.5). CRD was a no predictor for developing chronic PF on univariate analyses (HR 0.7 CI-95 0.3-2.0, p = 0.54). A lower proportion of CRD patients developed chronic PF due to a septic cause (1% vs 6%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Although differences in chronic PF among CRD and TME patients were not observed, a trend toward TME patients developing chronic pelvic sepsis was detected. Surgeons may consider performing CRD during IPAA surgery for UC.

Rectosigmoid Mesorectal-Sparing Resection in Advanced Ovarian Cancer Surgery

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal of all gynecologic cancers.¹ Primary debulking surgery (PDS) with achievement of no residual tumor (RT, 0) still is the recommended treatment, and the one with the greatest prognostic impact.^2,3 Given the usual disease spread, several surgical procedures often are needed, and one of the most frequent is rectosigmoid resection.⁴ Anastomotic leak is the most feared complication. Other common complications are persistent urinary, defecatory, and sexual dysfunction due to autonomic nervous system injuries during surgery.⁵ Even if mesorectal resection is not deemed part of the treatment paradigm for advanced ovarian cancer (AOC), total mesorectal excision (TME) is the most common surgical technique used. However, for selected cases, with detection of no lymphadenopathies at the origin of the of the inferior mesenteric artery and a favorable ratio between the length of the left colon and the extent of the bowel carcinomatosis, a mesorectal-sparing resection with the preservation of the superior rectal artery and the mesorectal tissue should be pursued. This report presents the case of a 54-year-old woman with a diagnosis of FIGO stage 3C AOC who underwent PDS. The video (video 1) provides a step-by-step description of the surgical technique adopted for colorectal resection with mesorectal-sparing technique. Rectosigmoid mesorectal-sparing resection is feasible and could be a viable option for selected cases of AOC, maximizing the blood supply to colorectal anastomosis while minimizing the risk of both anastomotic leak and pelvic autonomic nervous system dysfunction.⁶.

Increasing experience of modified two-stage transanal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for therapy refractory ulcerative colitis. What have we learned? A retrospective analysis on 75 consecutive cases at a tertiary referral hospital

AIM

Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) should be delayed to a second stage in patients with ulcerative colitis and prolonged exposure to medical therapy. However, there is still discussion about whether a modified two-stage approach is preferable to a three-stage approach. Recently, a transanal approach has been introduced to overcome the well-known difficulties of laparoscopic pelvic surgery. This paper presents short-term outcomes of transanal IPAA (Ta-IPAA) according to a modified two-stage approach.

METHODS

Data from all patients who underwent a modified two-stage Ta-IPAA for ulcerative colitis refractory to medical therapy were retrieved retrospectively from a prospective database. A comprehensive complication index was used for 90-day postoperative complications. Conversion, duration of surgery, hospital stay and reoperation were considered. A logistic regression model was used to assess risk factors for peri-pouch sepsis.

RESULTS

Seventy-five (68.8%) patients were identified from 109 consecutive IPAAs. Median operation time was 159 min. Conversion rate was 4%. Mean comprehensive complication index was 7. All anastomotic leaks (10.6%) were treated with diverting ileostomy. Additionally, active rescue with transanal drainage and early resuturing of the anastomotic gap was performed in six patients. Ileostomy closure occurred after a median period of 5.4 months. At univariable analysis, factors associated with peri-pouch sepsis were male gender and age at IPAA construction.

CONCLUSIONS

A modified two-stage Ta-IPAA is safe and feasible. Standardization and reproducibility of the technique are reflected in few conversions and intra-operative complications. Finally, morbidity and anastomotic leak do not differ from those reported in previous Ta-IPAA series with a variable proportion of multistage procedures.

Inflammatory bowel disease position statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR): ulcerative colitis

The Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR) promoted the project reported here, which consists of a Position Statement of Italian colorectal surgeons to address the surgical aspects of ulcerative colitis management. Members of the society were invited to express their opinions on several items proposed by the writing committee, based on evidence available in the literature. The results are presented, focusing on relevant points. The present paper is not an alternative to available guidelines; rather, it offers a snapshot of the attitudes of SICCR surgeons about the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis. The committee was able to identify some points of major disagreement and suggested strategies to improve the quality of available data and acceptance of guidelines.