A Cross-Sectional Review of Reporting Variation in Postoperative Bowel Dysfunction After Rectal Cancer Surgery

Low anterior resection syndrome and quality of life after intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched study

PURPOSE

Our aim was to perform a propensity score-matched study to compare the long-term functional outcomes and quality of life following intersphincteric resection vs. low anterior resection (LAR) with very low anastomosis.

METHODS

Patients who underwent intersphincteric resection or low anterior resection with low anastomosis (≤ 4 cm from the anal verge) for rectal cancer between January 2017 and June 2020 were retrospectively included. A propensity score-matching process was performed. Functional outcomes and quality of life were assessed using the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level Version (EQ-5D-3L), EORC-QLQ C30, EORC-QLQ CR29, Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS), Wexner, and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaires. The primary outcome was the presence of LARS at least 12 months after surgery. The second outcome was the postoperative quality of life of included patients.

RESULTS

After propensity matching, 128 patients were included, including 58 males and 70 females with a median age of 59.5. Patients in the intersphincteric resection group showed a higher incidence of incontinence to flatus (32.8% versus 14.0%, p = 0.043) and stools (42.2% versus 21.9%, p = 0.046), pain/discomfort (25.0% versus 7.8%, p = 0.001), and bowel dysfunction, while the LARS scores (15.0 versus 13.2, p = 0.461) and major LARS rates (26.6% versus 14.1%, p = 0.078) were comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

ISR leads to increased bowel incontinence rate and increased anal pain, without affecting the grade of low anterior resection syndrome, fecal urgency, and clustering. LAR might be the preferred sphincteric-preserving approach when negative resection margins and a safe anastomosis are guaranteed. Patients should be fully informed about potential functional impairment after sphincter-preservation procedures.

The status of low anterior resection syndrome: data from a single-center in China

AIM

The incidence and risk factors of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) largely variate in different studies. In addition, there is lack of study on how patients evaluate the therapeutic effect of LARS. This single-center retrospective study aims to investigate the status of LARS in Chinese patients undergoing laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR).

METHODS

Consequent patients undergoing laparoscopic LAR and free from disease recurrence from January 2015 to May 2021 were issued with both LARS questionnaire and satisfaction survey. Related data were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Both LARS questionnaires and self-made satisfaction survey were received from 261 eligible patients. The overall incidence of LARS was 47.1% (minor in 19.5%, major in 27.6%), decreased with the passage of postoperative time (64.7% within 12 months, and 41.7% within 12-36 months), and became stable 36 months later (39.7%). The most common symptoms were defecation clustering (n = 107/261, 41.0%) and defecation urgency (n = 101/261, 38.7%). According to the multivariable regression analysis, risk factors of major LARS were: 1 year increase in age (OR 1.035, 95% CI 1.004-1.068), protective stoma (OR 2.656, 95% CI 1.233-5.724) and T_3 - 4 stage (OR 2.449, 95% CI 1.137-5.273). Most patients complained defecation disorder (87.3%) to doctors and 84.5% got suggestions or treatments for it. However, only 36.8% patients thought the treatments worked for them.

CONCLUSIONS

LARS frequently occurs after laparoscopic LAR, while the therapeutic effect is not satisfying. Elder, advanced T-stage and protective stoma were risk factors for postoperative major LARS.

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and non-ELAPE for low rectal cancer

This study was performed to retrospectively analyze and compare the related clinical indicators between extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and non-ELAPE under laparoscopic for low rectal cancer. From June 2018 to September 2021, a total of 80 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent either of the above two types of surgeries at our Hospital were enrolled. Patients were divided into the ELAPE group and non-ELAPE group based on the different surgical methods. Preoperative general indicators, intraoperative indicators, postoperative complications, positive circumferential resection margin rate, local recurrence rate, hospital stay length, hospital expenses, and other related indicators were compared between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the comparison of preoperative indexes between the ELAPE group and non-ELAPE group, including age, preoperative BMI, and gender. Similarly, there were no significant differences in abdominal operation time, total operation time, and the number of intraoperative lymph nodes dissected between the two groups. However, the perineal operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative perforation rate, and positive circumferential resection margin rate were significantly different between the two groups. In the comparison of postoperative indexes, perineal complications, postoperative hospital stay length, and IPSS score were significantly different between the two groups. The use of ELAPE in treating T3-4NxM0 phase low rectal cancer was superior to non-ELAPE in reducing intraoperative perforation rate, positive circumferential resection margin rate, local recurrence rate, etc.

Effect of Neoadjuvant Therapy on the Functional Outcome of Patients With Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIMS

The impact of neoadjuvant therapy on the functional outcome of patients with resectable rectal cancer is still controversial. The aim of the present study was to explore the effects of neoadjuvant therapy on anorectal function (ARF), urinary function and sexual function in relevant patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically. All English-language studies, published from January 2000 to July 2021, that explored the (postoperative) effects of neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery on ARF, urinary function and sexual function of patients were included (PROSPERO 2021: CRD42021281617).

RESULTS

The data in this study were derived from 37 articles based on 33 studies; in total, 17 917 patients were enrolled. The meta-analysis revealed that the incidence of anorectal dysfunction in the neoadjuvant therapy group was significantly higher than that in the group of upfront surgery, which was manifested by a higher incidence of major low anterior resection syndrome (odds ratio = 3.09, 95% confidence interval = 2.48, 3.84; P < 0.001), reduction of mean squeeze pressure and mean resting pressure, and other manifestations, including clustering of stools, incontinence, urgency and use of pads. With the extension of follow-up time, the adverse effects of neoadjuvant therapy on major low anterior resection syndrome existed. Compared with patients undergoing upfront surgery, neoadjuvant therapy increased the risk of urinary incontinence (odds ratio = 1.31, 95% confidence interval = 1.00, 1.72; P = 0.05) and erectile dysfunction (odds ratio = 1.77, 95% confidence interval = 1.27, 2.45; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with upfront surgery, neoadjuvant therapy is not only associated with impairment of ARF, but also with increased incidence of urinary incontinence and male erectile dysfunction. However, the influence of confounding factors (e.g. surgical method, tumour stage) needs to be considered.

Essential updates 2020/2021: Advancing precision medicine for comprehensive rectal cancer treatment

In the paradigm shift related to rectal cancer treatment, we have to understand a variety of new emerging topics to provide appropriate treatment for individual patients as precision medicine. However, information on surgery, genomic medicine, and pharmacotherapy is highly specialized and subdivided, creating a barrier to achieving thorough knowledge. In this review, we summarize the perspective for rectal cancer treatment and management from the current standard-of-care to the latest findings to help optimize treatment strategy.

Trajectory of change of low anterior resection syndrome over time after restorative proctectomy for rectal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer is associated with a high incidence of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), but few studies report longitudinal results for bowel function. The aim of our study was to examine the trajectory of change of LARS over the first 18 months after restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A prospective database measuring functional outcomes in rectal cancer patients from a single university-affiliated specialist colorectal referral center from 10/2018 to 03/2020 was queried. Patients were included in this study if they underwent restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer and had at least three assessments in the first 18 months after primary surgery or after closure of proximal diversion. Bowel function was assessed using the LARS score, administered at every surveillance follow-up after restoration of bowel continuity. Latent-class growth curve (trajectory) analysis was used to identify different trajectories of LARS changes over the first 18 months and group patients into these trajectory groups. These groups were then compared to identify predictors for each trajectory.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients were included (63 males, mean age. 61.3 ± 12.5 years). Trajectory analysis identified three distinct trajectory groups. Group 1 had stable minimal LARS over time (26%). Group 2 had early LARS scores consistent with the minor LARS category and improved with time (28%). Group 3 had persistently high LARS scores (45%). Neoadjuvant therapy, intersphincteric resection, and proximal diversion were more common in group 3.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified three main trajectories of change of LARS in the 18 months after restorative proctectomy. These data may be used to better inform patients of their expected postoperative bowel function.

Acupuncture for Quality of Life of Patients with Defecation Dysfunction after Sphincter Preserving Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for quality of life of patients with defecation dysfunction (DD) after sphincter preserving surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

We searched nine online databases from inception to July 1, 2021, and did not restrict the type of language. Then, studies were independently selected by two research team members with screening criteria and risk bias assessment, and the data were extracted. The primary outcome was Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 29 (QLQ-CR29). The data were then synthesized using the RevMan V.5.2 by random-effects model. Also, we used the standardized mean differences with 95% credible interval (CI) to describe the outcome of the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (with 439 patients) were included in the systematic review, and data from 2 RCTs (with 200 patients) were used in the meta-analysis. Five studies (83%) were judged to have a medium risk of bias, and one was at high risk of bias. For synthesis, data from two medium-risk studies found that acupuncture or electropuncture may improve the QLQ-CR29 with urination (mean difference, -0.39 points; 95%CI, -0.46 to -0.32; I 2 = 34%), abdominal pain (mean difference, -0.71 points; 95%CI, -0.89 to -0.54; I 2 = 9%), stool (mean difference, -0.49 points; 95%CI, -0.77 to -0.20; I 2 = 57%), defecation (mean difference, -0.59 points; 95% CI, -0.85 to -0.33; I 2 = 51%), sexual function (mean difference, 0.93 points; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.38; I 2 = 90%), and self-feelings (mean difference, 1.04 points; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.73; I 2 = 94%).

CONCLUSION

Findings in this study indicate that acupuncture or electropuncture may be effective and safe for DD, but the quality of included studies was very low. So, more large-scale, multicenter, long-term, and high-quality original research is still expected in the future.

Assessment of long-term bowel dysfunction after restorative proctectomy for neoplastic disease: A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to describe postoperative bowel dysfunction after restorative proctectomy, and to identify factors associated with its development.

METHODS

Patients who underwent restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer between April 1998 and November 2018 were identified from the Hospital Episode Statistics database and linked to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink for postoperative follow-up. Bowel dysfunction was defined according to relevant symptom-based read codes and medication prescription-product codes. A Cox proportional hazards model was performed to identify factors associated with postoperative bowel dysfunction, adjusting for relevant covariates.

RESULTS

In total, 2,197 patients were included. The median age was 70.0 (interquartile range: 62.0-77.0) years old, and the majority (59.2%) of patients were male. After a median follow-up of 51.6 (24.0-90.0) months, bowel dysfunction was identified in 620 (28.2%) patients. Risk factors for postoperative bowel dysfunction included extremes of age (<40 years old: adjusted hazards ratio 2.35, 95% confidence interval 1.18-4.65; 70-79 years old: adjusted hazards ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.52), radiotherapy (adjusted hazards ratio 1.94, 95% confidence interval 1.56-2.42), distal tumors (adjusted hazards ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.34-1.94), history of diverting ostomy (adjusted hazards ratio 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.33-1.89), and anastomotic leak (adjusted hazards ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.06-2.05). A minimally invasive surgical approach was protective for postoperative bowel dysfunction (adjusted hazards ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.53-0.86).

CONCLUSION

Bowel dysfunction was common after restorative proctectomy, and several patient, disease, and treatment-level factors were associated with its development.

Improvement of low anterior resection syndrome beyond 2 years after total mesorectal excision

AIM

Bowel dysfunction after sphincter-preserving proctectomy, also known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), has significant impact on survivors of rectal cancer. This study aimed to assess the temporal change of LARS beyond 2 years after proctectomy, which has not been fully studied.

METHODS

We longitudinally enrolled consecutive patients who had received total mesorectal excision in a tertiary academic medical center, with preoperative neoadjuvant therapy if indicated. LARS score was longitudinally assessed by two serial follow-ups, with a fixed interval of 18 months.

RESULTS

Overall, 107 patients responded for the first follow-up after a median of q20 months, 96 of whom responded for the second follow-up after a median of 38 months. At the first follow-up, 48 patients (44.9%) reported major LARS, compared with 23 (24.0%) at the second follow-up (p < 0.001). Mean LARS score improved from 27.3 to 18.6, mostly from "urgency" (12.2 vs. 6.2, p < 0.001) and "clustering of stools" (9.7 vs. 7.7, p = 0.001). Anastomosis less than 3 cm from the anal verge was independently associated with LARS improvement.

CONCLUSION

Bowel dysfunction continues to improve 2 years after total mesorectal excision, with most symptom relief in urgency and stool clustering, especially in patients with lower anastomosis.

Symptoms affecting quality of life after sphincter-saving rectal cancer surgery: A systematic review

PURPOSE

Rectal cancer is common and is frequently treated with surgery which removes the rectum but retains anal sphincters. After sphincter-saving rectal cancer surgery, which can result in a reduced rectal storage capacity and nerve damage, symptoms frequently occur.

METHOD

A systematic review was undertaken to determine which symptoms occur and their effect on quality of life. Data from questionnaires and interviews were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Fourteen heterogeneous studies were identified reporting both qualitative and quantitative data on over 1700 individuals. The most commonly reported symptoms related to bowel changes. The most problematic changes were bowel and sexual dysfunction. Quality of life was most affected by an inability to function as individuals desired, specifically in their chosen role and socially. Quality of life improved as time progressed or symptoms resolved; but symptoms could persist for many years.

CONCLUSION

After sphincter-saving rectal cancer surgery quality of life is affected by symptoms such as bowel dysfunction. Healthcare professionals need to gain a better understanding of which symptoms most bother individuals to enable patient-focussed interventions to be planned and improve quality of life.

Comparative analysis of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Bowel Function Instrument and the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Questionnaire for assessment of bowel dysfunction in rectal cancer patients after low anterior resection

AIM

Neoadjuvant therapy and total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer are associated with bowel dysfunction symptoms known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Our study compared the only two validated instruments-the LARS Questionnaire (LARS-Q) and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Bowel Function Instrument (MSK-BFI)-in rectal cancer patients undergoing sphincter-preserving TME.

METHODS

One hundred and ninety patients undergoing sphincter-preserving TME for Stage I-III rectal cancer completed the MSK-BFI and LARS-Q simultaneously at a median time of 12 (range 1-43) months after restoration of bowel continuity. Associations between the MSK-BFI total/subscale scores and the LARS-Q score were investigated using Spearman rank correlation (r _s ). Discriminant validity for the two questionnaires was assessed, and the questionnaires were compared with the European Quality of Life Instrument.

RESULTS

Major LARS was identified in 62% of patients. The median MSK-BFI scores for no LARS, minor LARS and major LARS were 76.5, 70 and 57, respectively. We found a strong association between MSK-BFI and LARS-Q (r _s -0.79). The urgency/soilage subscale (r _s -0.7) and the frequency subscale (r_s -0.68) of MSK-BFI strongly correlated with LARS-Q. Low correlation was observed between the MSK-BFI diet subscale and LARS-Q (r _s -0.39). On multivariate analysis, both questionnaires showed worse bowel function in patients with distal tumours. A low to moderate correlation with the European Quality of Life Instrument was observed for both questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

The MSK-BFI and LARS-Q showed good correlation and similar discriminant validity. As the LARS-Q is easier to complete, it may be considered the preferred tool to screen for bowel dysfunction.

CORRELATION BETWEEN THE LEVEL OF COLORECTAL ANASTOMOSIS AND ANORECTAL FUNCTION

Anterior rectal resection is a standard surgical procedure for treating carcinomas of rectum and distal sigmoid colon. In many cases of anterior rectal resection, postoperatively some level of fecal incontinence may occur. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of the colorectal anastomosis level on anorectal functional disorder. In our prospective study, the participants were patients diagnosed with carcinoma of rectum or distal sigmoid colon. All patients underwent standard open or laparoscopic anterior rectal resection. Six months after the surgery, the function of anorectum was evaluated in all participants. Finally, 38 patients were analyzed, including 13/38 (34.2%) patients with high rectal anastomosis, 11/38 (28.9%) with mid rectal anastomosis and 14/38 (36.8%) with low rectal anastomosis. Patients with a lower level of anastomosis had a statistically significantly greater number of stools, higher urgency and discrimination impairment, more pronounced solid, liquid and gas incontinence, and greater need for diapers (p<0.05 all). Therefore, patients with lower anastomosis had a statistically significant impairment of their quality of life and higher Wexner score (p<0.001 for both analyses). Our study results suggested reduced neorectal capacity to be the main pathophysiological factor for the development of postoperative anorectal function impairment.

Functional outcomes of surgery for colon cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

As survival rates of colon cancer increase, knowledge about functional outcomes is becoming ever more important. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantify functional outcomes after surgery for colon cancer. Secondly, we aimed to determine the effect of time to follow-up and type of colectomy on postoperative functional outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies reporting bowel function following surgery for colon cancer. Outcome parameters were bowel function scores and/or prevalence of bowel symptoms. Additionally, the effect of time to follow-up and type of resection was analyzed.

RESULTS

In total 26 studies were included, describing bowel function between 3 to 178 months following right hemicolectomy (n = 4207), left hemicolectomy/sigmoid colon resection (n = 4211), and subtotal/total colectomy (n = 161). In 16 studies (61.5%) a bowel function score was used. Pooled prevalence for liquid and solid stool incontinence was 24.1% and 6.9%, respectively. The most prevalent constipation-associated symptoms were incomplete evacuation and obstructive, difficult emptying (33.3% and 31.4%, respectively). Major Low Anterior Resection Syndrome was present in 21.1%. No differences between time to follow-up or type of colectomy were found.

CONCLUSION

Bowel function problems following surgery for colon cancer are common, show no improvement over time and do not depend on the type of colectomy. Apart from fecal incontinence, constipation-associated symptoms are also highly prevalent. Therefore, more attention should be paid to all possible aspects of bowel dysfunction following surgery for colon cancer and targeted treatment should commence promptly.

Patients' preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery for low rectal cancer can be associated with severe bowel dysfunction and impaired quality of life. It is important to determine how patients value the trade-off between anorectal dysfunction versus abdominoperineal resection. Therefore, the objective was to determine patients' preferences for treatment for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Ambulatory patients without colorectal cancer at a single high-volume academic colorectal referral center from September 2019 to March 2020 were included. Patients with prior stoma or malignancy were excluded. Participants were presented with a hypothetic scenario describing a low rectal cancer. A threshold task identified preferences for functional and oncologic outcomes for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients were recruited. Patients preferred abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation if there were more than a mean of 6.7 (standard deviation 4.0) daily bowel movements, 1.9 (standard deviation 2.6) daily episodes of stool incontinence, and 6.5 (standard deviation 3.2) gas incontinence. Abdominoperineal resection was preferred over sphincter preservation in 38% if daily activities were altered owing to fecal urgency. Patients were willing to accept a 10% (interquartile range, 5-25) absolute increase in risk of margin involvement with sphincter preservation to avoid abdominoperineal resection. Abdominoperineal resection was the preferred option overall for 18% of patients.

CONCLUSION

An important proportion of patients would prefer abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation owing to the impairments in anorectal function associated with sphincter preservation. The decision to perform sphincter preservation or abdominoperineal resection should consider how the patients' value functional outcomes with a low anastomosis.

Effectiveness and safety of acupuncture and moxibustion for defecation dysfunction after sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Defecation dysfunction (DD) is one of the most common complications following sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. And there is no effective treatment of DD after sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. Although some studies suggested that acupuncture and moxibustion (AM) is effective and safe for DD after sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer, lacking strong evidence, for instance, the relevant systematic review, meta-analysis and randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a large, multicentre sample, makes the effects and safety remain uncertain. The present protocol is described for a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effectiveness and safety of AM for DD after sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search nine online databases from inception to 1 October 2019; the language of included trials will not be restricted. This study will include RCTs that performed AM as the main method of the experimental group for patients with DD after sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. Two of the researchers will independently select the studies, conduct risk of bias assessment and extract the data. We will use the fixed-effects model or random-effects model of RevMan V.5.2 software to analyse data synthesis. The risk ratios with 95% CIs and weighted mean differences or standardised mean differences with 95% CIs will be used to present the data synthesis outcome of dichotomous data respectively and the continuous data. Evidence quality of outcome will be assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required in this secondary research evidence, and we will publish the results of this study in a journal or concerned conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019140097.

International Consensus Definition of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Low anterior resection syndrome is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The low anterior resection syndrome score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of low anterior resection syndrome. Although the low anterior resection syndrome score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders.

DESIGN

This international patient-provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting.

PARTICIPANTS

Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons, and other health professionals from 5 regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in 3 languages (English, Spanish, and Danish).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of low anterior resection syndrome.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96%, and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to 8 symptoms and 8 consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome.

LIMITATIONS

Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first definition of low anterior resection syndrome developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of low anterior resection syndrome. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in low anterior resection syndrome over time and with intervention.

International consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome

AIM

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders.

METHOD

This international patient-provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish, and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this.

CONCLUSION

This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention.

International consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome

BACKGROUND

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders.

METHODS

This international patient-provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS.

RESULTS

Three hundred and twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention.

Is my life going to change?-a review of quality of life after rectal resection

Rectal resection is a common practice for colorectal surgeons. The causes of this procedure are varied. The most frequent is cancer, but also inflammatory bowel disease, endometriosis, and rectovaginal or rectourethral fistulas. The loss of the normal rectal reservoir function, urinary problems, sexual dysfunction or pelvic pain are frequently reported in patients after rectal surgery and these disorders markedly affect the overall quality of life (QoL). In the last decades, rectal surgery has radically changed, with the development of surgical techniques, and it has progressed from abdominoperineal resection (APR) with a permanent colostomy to sphincter-saving procedures. Nowadays, the use of sphincter-preserving surgery has increased, but all these surgical techniques can have important sequels that modify the QoL of the patients. Historically, surgical outcomes, such as complications, survival and recurrences, have been widely studied by surgeons. In the present day, surgical outcomes have improved, rectal cancer recurrence rate has decreased and survival has increased. For these reasons, it has begun to gain importance in aspects of the QoL of patients, such as body image, fecal continence and sexuality or urinary function. Therefore, physicians should know the influence of different techniques and approaches on functional outcomes and QoL, to be able to inform patients of the treatment benefits and risk of postoperative dysfunctions. The aim of our study is to review the current literature to determine to what degree the QoL of patients who underwent a rectal resection decreases, which domains are the most affected and, in addition, to establish the influence of different surgical techniques and approaches on functional outcomes.

Fecal incontinence after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer-impact of potential risk factors and pelvic intraoperative neuromonitoring

BACKGROUND

Fecal incontinence frequently occurs after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. This prospective study analyzed predictive factors and the impact of pelvic intraoperative neuromonitoring at different follow-up intervals.

METHODS

Fifty-two patients were included undergoing total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, and 29 under control of pelvic intraoperative neuromonitoring. Fecal incontinence was assessed using the Wexner Score at 3 and 6 months after stoma closure (follow-ups 1 and 2) as well as 1 and 2 years after surgery (follow-ups 3 and 4). Risk factors were identified by means of logistic regression.

RESULTS

New onset of fecal incontinence was significantly lower in the neuromonitoring group at each follow-up (follow-up 1: 2 of 29 patients (7%) vs. 8 of 23 (35%), (p = 0.014); follow-up 2: 3 of 29 (10%) vs. 9 of 23 (39%), (p = 0.017); follow-up 3: 5 of 29 (17%) vs. 11 of 23 (48%), p = 0.019; follow-up 4: 6 of 28 (21%) vs. 11 of 22 (50%), p = 0.035). Non-performance of neuromonitoring was found to be an independent predictor for fecal incontinence throughout the survey. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was an independent predictor in the further course 1 and 2 years after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Performance of pelvic intraoperative neuromonitoring is associated with significantly lower rates of fecal incontinence. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was found to have negative late effects. This became evident 1 year after surgery.

Validation of the Japanese Version of the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Score

BACKGROUND

The low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score is a patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate the severity of bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery by scoring the major symptoms of LARS. The aim of this study was to translate the English version of the LARS score into Japanese and to investigate the validity and reliability of the LARS score.

METHODS

The LARS score was translated in Japanese following current international recommendations. A total of 149 rectal cancer patients completed the LARS score questionnaire and were also asked a single question assessing the impact of bowel function on quality of life (QoL). A total of 136 patients answered the LARS score questionnaire twice.

RESULTS

The Japanese LARS score showed high convergent validity, based on its good correlation between the LARS score and QoL (p < 0.001). The LARS score was able to discriminate between patients according to the tumor distance to anal verge (p < 0.001), type of surgery (p < 0.001), and time since surgery (p = 0.001). Patients after ultra-low anterior resection and intersphincteric resection showed especially high scores. The score also had high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.87).

CONCLUSION

The Japanese LARS score is a valid and reliable tool for measuring LARS. The LARS score is appropriate for assessments in postoperative bowel function and international comparison. Using this score, patient-reported outcome measures of LARS in Japanese patients can be shared internationally. Additional validation reports from non-English speaking countries can support the LARS score as a worldwide assessment tool for postoperative bowel dysfunction.

Perioperative morbidity, bowel function and oncologic outcome after radical cystectomy and ileal orthotopic neobladder reconstruction: Studer-pouch versus I-pouch

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the length of ileum used for ileal orthotopic neobladder (ONB) reconstruction (60 cm vs. 40 cm) after radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer (BC) impacts on bowel function, postoperative complications or survival outcome.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, we included 56 patients who received an ONB (Studer (S)-Pouch: 23 patients; I-Pouch: 33 patients) after RC for BC between 2003 and 2011. Preoperative comorbidities were assessed by the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and surgical complications as graded by the Clavien-Dindo classification. Changes of perioperative bowel habits were retrospectively evaluated by the validated Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI). Kaplan-Meier analyses calculated survival outcomes between both ONB types.

RESULTS

Preoperative CCI was comparable between S- and I-pouch patients. No significant differences were observed for 30-day major- (p = 0.33) and minor (p = 0.96) complication rates between both neobladder types. S-Pouch patients reported higher preoperative stool frequencies (S-pouch: mean 2.7; I-pouch: mean 3.4; p = 0.049) and tended to suffer from urgency (S: mean 2.9; I: mean 3.4; p = 0.059). No significant differences in postoperative bowel disorders were found between both neobladder types (S-Pouch: 15.9, IQR; I-Pouch: 16.6 IQR; p = 0.84). Furthermore, we observed no overall-, cancer specific- or recurrence free survival advantage for either of both ONB variants (p = 0.81; 0.65 and 0.78), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Comorbidities, perioperative complication rates and bowel habits were similar between both ONB substitutes and did not influence survival outcomes. These stratified data suggest that the length of ileum used for ONB reconstruction (60- vs. 40 cm) does not impact per se on postoperative bowel function.