Antegrade Enema After Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: The Last Chance to Avoid Definitive Colostomy for Refractory Low Anterior Resection Syndrome and Fecal Incontinence

Clinical Management of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome: Review of the Current Diagnosis and Treatment

BACKGROUND

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is a series of bowel dysfunction symptoms, including altered bowel frequency, irregular bowel rhythms, fecal incontinence, and constipation. LARS occurs in 80% of patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery, affecting patients' quality of life along with social avoidance. Different measurements and treatments have been raised to deal with LARS, but no systematic standard has been developed.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

To promote the standardization of clinical trials and clinical management of LARS, this review summarizes the latest findings up until 2023 regarding the diagnostic criteria, assessment protocols, and treatment modalities for postoperative LARS in rectal cancer.

RESULTS

The diagnostic criteria for LARS need to be updated to the definition proposed by the LARS International Collaborative Group, replacing the current application of the LARS score. In both clinical trials and clinical treatment, the severity of LARS should be assessed using at least one symptom assessment questionnaire, the LARS score or MSKCC BFI, and at least one scale related to quality of life. Anorectal manometry, fecoflowmetry, endoscopic ultrasonography, and pelvic floor muscle strength testing are recommended to be adopted only in clinical trials. After analysis of the latest literature on LARS treatment, a stepwise classification model is established for the standardized clinical management of LARS. Patients with minor LARS can start with first-line treatment, including management of self-behavior with an emphasis on diet modification and medication. Lamosetron, colesevelam hydrochloride, and loperamide are common antidiarrheal agents. Second-line management indicates multi-mode pelvic floor rehabilitation and transanal irrigation. Patients with major LARS should select single or several treatments in second-line management. Refractory LARS can choose antegrade enema, neuromodulation, or colostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

In clinical trials of LARS treatment between 2020 and 2022, the eligibility criteria and evaluation system have been variable. Therefore, it is urgent to create a standard for the diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of LARS. Failure to set placebos and differentiate subgroups are limitations of many current LARS studies. Randomized controlled trials comparing diverse therapies and long-term outcomes are absent, as well. Moreover, a new scale needs to be developed to incorporate the patient's perspective and facilitate outpatient follow-up. Though the establishment of a stepwise classification model for LARS treatment here is indispensable, the refinement of the guidelines may be improved by more standardized studies.

Oncologic outcomes of watch-and-wait strategy or surgery for low to intermediate rectal cancer in clinical complete remission after adjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A watch-and-wait (WW) strategy or surgery for low to intermediate rectal cancer that has reached clinical complete remission (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCRT) or total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) has been widely used in the clinic, but both treatment strategies are controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the oncologic outcomes of a watch-and-wait strategy or a surgical approach to treat rectal cancer in complete remission and to report the evidence-based clinical advantages of the two treatment strategies.

METHODS

Seven national and international databases were searched for clinical trials comparing the watch-and-wait strategy with surgical treatment for oncological outcomes in patients with rectal cancer in clinical complete remission.

RESULTS

In terms of oncological outcomes, there was no significant difference between the watch-and-wait strategy and surgical treatment in terms of overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.52, 1.64), P = 0.777), and subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in 5-year disease-free survival (5-year DFS) between WW and both local excision (LE) and radical surgery (RS) (HR = 1.76, 95% CI (0.97, 3.19), P = 0.279; HR = 1.98, 95% CI (0.95, 4.13), P = 0.164), in distant metastasis rate (RR = 1.12, 95% CI (0.73, 1.72), P = 0.593), mortality rate (RR = 1.62, 95% CI (0.93, 2.84), P = 0.09), and organ preservation rate (RR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.94, 1.17), P = 0.394) which were not statistically significant and on the outcome indicators of local recurrence rate (RR = 2.09, 95% CI (1.44, 3.03), P < 0.001) and stoma rate (RR = 0.35, 95% CI (0.20, 0.61), P < 0.001). There were significant differences between the WW group and the surgical treatment group.

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in OS, 5-year DFS, distant metastasis, and mortality between the WW strategy group and the surgical treatment group. The WW strategy did not increase the risk of local recurrence compared with local resection but may be at greater risk of local recurrence compared with radical surgery, and the WW group was significantly better than the surgical group in terms of stoma rate; the WW strategy was evidently superior in preserving organ integrity compared to radical excision. Consequently, for patients who exhibit a profound inclination towards organ preservation and the evasion of stoma formation in the scenario of clinically complete remission of rectal cancer, the WW strategy can be contemplated as a pragmatic alternative to surgical interventions. It is, however, paramount to emphasize that the deployment of such a strategy should be meticulously undertaken within the ambit of a multidisciplinary team's management and within specialized centers dedicated to rectal cancer management.

Percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy for management of Ogilvie's syndrome: a case series and literature review with an update on current guidelines (with video)

INTRODUCTION

Percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy (PEC) is a viable treatment option for patients with persistent or recurrent acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (ACPO; Ogilvie's syndrome). It should be generally considered in patients that are refractory to pharmacologic and endoscopic decompression, especially those not amenable to surgical intervention due to an increased perioperative risk. Physicians are rather unfamiliar with this approach given the limited number of reports in the literature and paucity of guideline resources, although guidelines concerning ACPO and covering the role of endoscopy were recently published by three major expert societies, all within the last 2 years.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively identified three consecutive patients who underwent PEC placement at a Czech tertiary referral center between May 2018 and December 2021: all for recurrent ACPO. In addition, we summarized the current guidelines in order to present the latest knowledge related both to the procedure and management approach in patients with ACPO.

RESULTS

The placement of PEC was successful and resulted in clinical improvement in all cases without any adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The results of our experience are in line with previous reports and suggest that PEC may become a very useful tool in the armamentarium of modalities utilized to treat ACPO. Furthermore, the availability of guideline resources now offers comprehensive guidance for informed decision-making and the procedural aspects.

Feasibility Study of Transanal Irrigation Using a Colostomy Irrigation System in Patients With Low Anterior Resection Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Low anterior resection syndrome has a negative impact on quality of life. Intestinal irrigation is a method of lavage consisting of a scheduled evacuation.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate functional and quality-of-life outcomes in patients with low anterior resection syndrome after transanal irrigation using a colostomy irrigation system.

DESIGN

This was a prospective case series.

SETTINGS

This study presents a single-center experience at a tertiary oncological center in an upper-middle-income country.

PATIENTS

Patients classified as having minor or major low anterior resection syndrome 12 months after their operation were selected.

INTERVENTIONS

Transanal irrigation was performed using an ostomy irrigation kit. Questionnaires assessing patients' bowel function (low anterior resection syndrome and Wexner score) and quality of life (Short Form-36 questionnaire) were applied before and after treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were low anterior resection syndrome score and quality-of-life improvement after a 12-month treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 22 patients included, 20 had major and 2 had minor low anterior resection syndrome, with a median score of 39, especially high rates of incontinence for liquid stool (21; 95.5%), clustering (21; 95.5%), and urgency (17; 77.3%). All patients successfully completed the 3-day training, and there were no complications during the treatment. After the 12-month period, the median score was 8, with 90% of the patients classified as having "no syndrome" and great improvement in all domains of this score. The most improved quality-of-life sections were patient vitality (p = 0.025) and physical (p = 0.002), social (p = 0.001), and emotional aspects (p = 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its small sample size and the limited follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents a safe implementation protocol of an ostomy irrigation device for transanal irrigation. It also adds to the literature that transanal irrigation is a safe, effective, and easily implemented procedure for patients with low anterior resection syndrome with a significant improvement in quality of life. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B563.ESTUDIO DE FACTIBILIDAD DE LA IRRIGACIÓN TRANSANAL UTILIZANDO EL SISTEMA DE IRRIGACIÓN PARA COLOSTOMÍA EN PACIENTES CON SÍNDROME DE RESECCIÓN ANTERIOR BAJAANTECEDENTES:El síndrome de resección anterior baja tiene un impacto negativo en la calidad de vida de los pacientes. La irrigación intestinal es un método de lavado que consiste en evacuaciones programadas.OBJETIVOS:Evaluar los resultados de la funcionalidad e impacto en la calidad de vida de los pacientes con síndrome de resección anterior y baja posterior a la irrigación transanal utilizando un sistema de irrigación de colostomía.DISEÑO:Es estudio prospectivo de una serie de casos.ESCENARIO:En este estudio se muestra la experiencia de un centro oncológico de tercer nivel en un país en vías de desarrollo.PACIENTES:Aquellos clasificados como síndrome con afección en menor o mayor grado doce meses después de la cirugía.METODO:Se efectuó irrigación transanal utilizando un equipo de irrigación de estomas. Se aplicaron cuestionarios para valorar la función intestinal de los pacientes (síndrome de resección anterior baja y la escala de Wexner) y para calidad de vida (Cuestionario Corto-36) antes y después del tratamiento.EVALUACION DE LOS RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES:Los principales resultados se obtuvieron de la escala del síndrome de resección baja y la mejoría en la calidad vida doce meses después de tratamiento.RESULTADOS:De los veintidós pacientes incluidos, veinte presentaron manifestaciones mayores del síndrome de resección baja y dos, manifestaciones menores. Con una media de treinta y nueve, se encontraron, especialmente, altos índices de incontinencia a líquidos (21; 95'5%) hiperdefecación "clustering" (21; 95'5%) y urgencia (17; 77'3%). Todos los pacientes completaron en forma satisfactoria el entrenamiento de tres días sin presentarse complicaciones durante el tratamiento. Al término del mes doce la media fue de ocho, con el 90% de los pacientes clasificados como "sin síndrome" y se observó una mejoría substancial en todos los puntos de la evaluación. Las secciones de calidad de vida que mostraron una mejoría significativa fueron: la vitalidad del paciente (p = 0'025), física (p = 0'002), social (p = 0'001) y emocional (p = 0'001).LIMITACIONES:El tamaño de la muestra es pequeño y el tiempo de seguimiento corto.CONCLUSIONES:Este estudio muestra la implementación de un protocolo seguro para la irrigación de estomas mediante un dispositivo transanal. Además contribuye con el concepto en la literatura de que la seguridad de la irrigación transanal es seguro, efectivo y facilmente reproducible para pacientes con síndrome de resección anterior baja con una mejoría significativa en la calidad de vida. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B563. (Traducción-Dr. Miguel Esquivel-Herrera).

Low Anterior Resection Syndrome: Predisposing Factors and Treatment

Bowel dysfunction after restorative proctectomy, commonly referred to as Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS), is a common long-term sequela of rectal cancer treatment that has a significant impact on quality of life. While the pathophysiology of LARS is poorly understood, its underlying cause is likely multifactorial, and there are numerous patient, tumor, and treatment-level factors associated with its development. In accordance with these risk factors, several strategies have been proposed to mitigate LARS postoperatively, including modifications in the technical approach to restorative proctectomy and advancements in the multidisciplinary care of rectal cancer. Furthermore, a clinically applicable pre-operative nomogram has been developed to estimate the risk of LARS postoperatively, which may help in counseling patients before surgery. The management of LARS begins with identifying those who manifest symptoms, as postoperative bowel dysfunction often goes unrecognized. This goal is best achieved with the systematic screening of patients using validated Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Once a patient with LARS is identified, conservative management strategies should be implemented. When available, a dedicated LARS nurse and/or multidisciplinary team can be an invaluable resource in engaging patients and educating them regarding LARS self-care. If symptoms of LARS persist or worsen over time despite conservative measures, second-line interventions, such as transanal irrigation or pelvic floor rehabilitation, can be initiated. A small proportion of patients will ultimately require an intervention such as sacral neuromodulation or permanent colostomy for refractory, major LARS symptoms.

A novel bowel rehabilitation programme after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: the BOREAL pilot study

AIM

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) following sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer has a high prevalence, with an impact on long-term bowel dysfunction and quality of life. We designed the bowel rehabilitation programme (BOREAL) as a proactive strategy to assess and treat patients with LARS. The BOREAL programme consists of a stepwise approach of escalating treatments: medical management (steps 0-1), pelvic floor physiotherapy, biofeedback and transanal irrigation (step 2), sacral nerve neuromodulation (step 3), percutaneous endoscopic caecostomy and anterograde enema (step 4) and definitive colostomy (step 5).

METHODS

A pilot study was undertaken to assess the feasibility of collecting LARS data routinely with the parallel implementation of the BOREAL programme. All patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between February 2017 and March 2019 were included. LARS was assessed using the LARS score and the Wexner Faecal Incontinence score at 30 days and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postoperatively. A good functional result was considered to be a combined LARS score <20 and/or a Wexner score <4.

RESULTS

In all, 137 patients were included. Overall compliance with the BOREAL programme was 72.9%. Major LARS decreased from 48% at 30 days postoperatively to 12% at 12 months, with a concomitant improvement in overall good function from 33% to 77%, P < 0.001. The majority of patients (n = 106, 77%) required medical management of their LARS.

CONCLUSION

The BOREAL programme demonstrates the acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness of implementing a responsive, stepwise programme for detecting and treating LARS.

[Low anterior resection syndrome-Causes and treatment approaches]

BACKGROUND

With improvement of the oncological prognosis and more sphincter-preserving procedures for rectal cancer of the lower third, the functional sequelae of anterior rectal resection become more and more predominant and are summarized under the term low anterior resection syndrome (LARS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this narrative review the causes, associated factors, prevalence, diagnostics and treatment strategies are presented based on an evaluation of the international literature.

RESULTS

The central role of the rectum in the physiology of defecation and continence explains the frequency of symptoms following anterior rectal resection. In an unselected patient population a major LARS is to be expected in approximately 40% and a minor LARS in approximately 20%. The most important factor is the length of the remaining rectal stump. The diagnosis of LARS is made clinically and can be quantified by scores, especially by the LARS score. Treatment options range from patient counselling to stoma construction and a symptom-related, stepwise approach is generally accepted.

CONCLUSION

While the evidence for the causes, the quantification and determination of associated factors of LARS is good, the treatment options are based either on experience or on only few studies.

Management guidelines for low anterior resection syndrome - the MANUEL project

AIM

Little is known about the pathophysiology of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), and evidence concerning the management of patients diagnosed with this condition is scarce. The aim of the LARS Expert Advisory Panel was to develop practical guidance for healthcare professionals dealing with LARS.

METHOD

The 'Management guidelines for low anterior resection syndrome' (MANUEL) project was promoted by a team of eight experts in the assessment and management of patients with LARS. After a face-to-face meeting, a strategy was agreed to create a comprehensive, practical guide covering all aspects that were felt to be clinically relevant. Eight themes were decided upon and working groups established. Each working group generated a draft; these were collated by another collaborator into a manuscript, after a conference call. This was circulated among the collaborators, and it was revised following the comments received. A lay patient revised the manuscript, and contributed to a section containing a patient's perspective. The manuscript was again circulated and finalized. A final teleconference was held at the end of the project.

RESULTS

The guidance covers all aspects of LARS management, from pathophysiology, to assessment and management. Given the lack of sound evidence and the often poor quality of the studies, most of the recommendations and conclusions are based on the opinions of the experts.

CONCLUSIONS

The MANUEL project provides an up-to-date practical summary of the available evidence concerning LARS, with useful directions for healthcare professional and patients suffering from this debilitating condition.

Functional outcomes of patients undergoing successful redo surgery after failed primary colorectal or coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

After a failure of a colorectal or coloanal anastomosis, redo anastomotic surgery aims to avoid the risk of permanent stoma but, overall, to provide a satisfactory functional result and quality of life. Very limited data exist regarding the long-term results after a successful redo anastomosis. The present study aimed to report the long-term functional outcomes and quality of life in patients after a successful redo colorectal anastomosis or coloanal anastomosis.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2018, all patients who had a successful restoration of bowel continuity after a failed primary anastomosis performed for a rectal cancer were included. Functional outcomes and quality of life were assessed using the low anterior rectal syndrome score and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-seven patients were eligible for inclusion in this study, with long-term functional outcomes assessed in 73 patients (57%). After a median follow-up of 69 months, 31 patients presented no or minor low anterior rectal syndrome (42%), whereas 31 patients reported a major low anterior rectal syndrome (42%). A definitive stoma was confectioned in 11 patients (15%), despite the technical success of redo anastomosis due to poor functional results. Only operative interval <36 months was associated with a poor functional outcome (P = .001), whereas all other factors such as pelvic radiotherapy were not (P = .848). An absence of major low anterior rectal syndrome was the only factor associated with improved quality of life (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

After successful redo colorectal anastomosis or coloanal anastomosis, good functional outcomes can be achieved in almost half of patients with a well-preserved quality of life but requires a prolonged postoperative period of rehabilitation.

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: the risk is functional rather than oncological. A 25-year experience from Bordeaux

AIM

There are few data evaluating the long-term outcomes of intersphincteric resection (ISR), especially the impact of inclusion of more juxtapositioned and intra-anal tumours on oncological and functional outcomes. We compared the oncological and functional results of patients treated by total mesorectal excision and ISR for low rectal cancer over a 25-year period.

METHOD

This is a retrospective study from a single institution evaluating results of ISR over three periods: 1990-1998, 1999-2006 and 2007-2014. Patients treated by partial or total ISR, with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, for low rectal cancer (≤ 6 cm from the anal verge) were included. We compared postoperative morbidity, quality of surgery and oncological and functional outcomes in the time periods studied.

RESULTS

Of 813 patients operated on for low rectal cancer, 303 had ISR. Tumour stage did not differ; however, the distance of the tumour from the anorectal junction decreased from 1 to 0 cm (P < 0.001) and the distal resection margin shortened from 25 to 10 mm (P < 0.001) from 1990 to 2014. The postoperative morbidity and quality of surgery did not change significantly over time. The 5-year local recurrence (4.3% vs 5.9% vs 3.5%; P = 0.741) and disease-free survival (72% vs 71% vs 75%; P = 0.918) did not differ between the three time periods. Functional results improved during the last period; however, overall 42% of patients experienced major bowel dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

Pushing the envelope of sphincter-saving resection in ultra-low rectal cancer reaching or invading the anal sphincter did not compromise oncological and functional outcomes. The main limitation of the ISR procedure appears to be functional rather than oncological, suggesting that bowel rehabilitation programmes should be developed.

Delayed coloanal anastomosis: an alternative option for restorative rectal cancer surgery after high-dose pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer

AIM

Restorative total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer after high-dose pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer has been reported to provide an unacceptable rate of pelvic sepsis. In a previous publication we proposed that delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) should be performed in this situation. The present study aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of this strategy.

METHOD

Between 2000 and 2018, 1094 men were operated on for rectal cancer in our institution. All men with T2/T3 mid and low rectal cancer with preoperative radiotherapy and restorative TME were considered for this study (n = 416). Patients with external-beam high-dose radiotherapy (EBHRT) for prostate cancer (70-78 Gy) were identified and compared with patients with conventional long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by TME. We compared our already published historical cohort (2000-2012), including arm A (CRT + TME; n = 236) and arm B (EBHRT + TME; n = 12), with our early cohort (2013-2018), including arm C (CRT + TME; n = 158) and arm D (EBHRT + TME-DCAA; n = 10). The end-points were morbidity, pelvic sepsis, reoperation rate and quality of the specimen.

RESULTS

Overall morbidity was not significantly different between groups. Pelvic sepsis decreased from 50% (arm B) to 10% (arm D) with the use of DCAA (P = 0.074), and was similar between arms A, C and D. Quality of the specimen was not significantly different between the four groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that TME with DCAA in patients with previous EBHRT is feasible, with the same postoperative pelvic sepsis rate as conventional CRT.

Tools for fecal incontinence assessment: lessons for inflammatory bowel disease trials based on a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Fecal incontinence is a disabling condition affecting up to 20% of women.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated fecal incontinence assessment in both inflammatory bowel disease and non-inflammatory bowel disease patients to propose a diagnostic approach for inflammatory bowel disease trials.

METHODS

We searched on Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library for all studies on adult inflammatory bowel disease and non-inflammatory bowel disease patients reporting data on fecal incontinence assessment from January 2009 to December 2019.

RESULTS

In total, 328 studies were included; 306 studies enrolled non-inflammatory bowel disease patients and 22 studies enrolled inflammatory bowel disease patients. In non-inflammatory bowel disease trials the most used tools were the Wexner score, fecal incontinence quality of life questionnaire, Vaizey score and fecal incontinence severity index (in 187, 91, 62 and 33 studies). Anal manometry was adopted in 41.2% and endoanal ultrasonography in 34.0% of the studies. In 142 studies (46.4%) fecal incontinence evaluation was performed with a single instrument, while in 64 (20.9%) and 100 (32.7%) studies two or more instruments were used. In inflammatory bowel disease studies the Wexner score, Vaizey score and inflammatory bowel disease quality of life questionnaire were the most commonly adopted tools (in five (22.7%), five (22.7%) and four (18.2%) studies). Anal manometry and endoanal ultrasonography were performed in 45.4% and 18.2% of the studies.

CONCLUSION

Based on prior validation and experience, we propose to use the Wexner score as the first step for fecal incontinence assessment in inflammatory bowel disease trials. Anal manometry and/or endoanal ultrasonography should be taken into account in the case of positive questionnaires.

WITHDRAWN: Analyzing risk factors for enterostomy infection and neuropsychology of patients by computer information data regression under endoscopic image guidance

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal.

Randomized clinical trial of prophylactic transanal irrigation versus supportive therapy to prevent symptoms of low anterior resection syndrome after rectal resection

Background

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is a frequent problem after rectal resection. Transanal irrigation (TAI) has been suggested as an effective treatment in patients who have developed LARS. This prospective RCT was undertaken to evaluate the effect of TAI as a prophylactic treatment to prevent symptoms of LARS.

Methods

Patients who had undergone ultralow rectal resection were randomized to start TAI on a daily basis, or to serve as a control with supportive therapy only after ileostomy closure. All patients were seen after 1 week, 1 month and 3 months, and the maximum number of defaecation episodes per day and night documented during follow‐up. Wexner score, LARS score and Short Form 36 questionnaire responses were evaluated in both groups.

Results

Thirty‐seven patients could be evaluated according to protocol (TAI 18, control 19). The maximum number of stool episodes per day and per night was significantly lower among patients who underwent TAI at 1 month (median 3 versus 7 episodes/day in TAI versus control group, P = 0·003; 0 versus 3 episodes/night, P = 0·001) and 3 months (3 versus 5 episodes per day, P = 0·006; 0 versus 1 episodes/night, P = 0·002). LARS scores were significantly better in the TAI group after 1 month (median 16 versus 32 in control group; P = 0·044) and 3 months (9 versus 31; P = 0·001). A significantly better result in terms of Wexner score was seen in the TAI group after 3 months (median 2 versus 6 in controls; P = 0·046).

Conclusion

Prophylactic TAI led to a significantly better functional outcome compared with supportive therapy for up to 3 months. Registration number: DRKS00011752 ( http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/).