A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Transanal Irrigation Versus Conservative Treatment in Patients With Low Anterior Resection Syndrome After Rectal Cancer Surgery

Risk factors of the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) after ileostomy reversal in rectal cancer patient

This study is aimed at identifying risk factors of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome following ileostomy reversal in rectal cancer patients who had undergone preventive ileostomy. This retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of 605 patients treated at the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University between January 2018 and December 2021. These patients were grouped based on LARS score, and Clinical and follow-up data were collected to conduct univariate analyses of potential factors influencing LARS occurrence based on variable type. Variables with statistical significance were included in a logistic regression model to analyze potential influences on the occurrence of LARS. Univariate and Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that N2 stage (OR = 2.290 95%CI: 1.076-4.873, P = 0.031), chemoradiotherapy (OR = 2.271, 95%CI: 1.246-4.138, P = 0.007), and anastomosis height (OR = 0.836, 95%CI: 0.717-0.975, P = 0.022) were independent influences on the occurrence of LARS. In model 3 (adjusting for all covariates), the relationship between anastomotic height and patient LARS status showed a negative correlation. In subgroup analyses, there were significant differences in the effect of anastomotic height on LARS in subgroups with different hemoglobin concentrations. A high occurrence rate of LARS is observed in rectal cancer patients with preventive ileostomy reversal. N2 stage, history of chemoradiotherapy, and anastomotic height are independent influence factors for the occurrence of major LARS after ileostomy reversal.

Role of robot-assisted laparoscopy in deep infiltrating endometriosis with bowel involvement: a systematic review and application of the IDEAL framework

AIMS

This review aims to evaluate the feasibility of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) as an alternative to standard laparoscopic surgery (SLS) for the treatment of bowel deep-infiltrative endometriosis. Additionally, it aims to provide guidance for future study design, by gaining insight into the current state of research, in accordance with the IDEAL framework.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted to identify relevant studies on RALS for bowel deep infiltrating endometriosis in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases up to August 2023 and reported in keeping with PRISMA guidelines. The study was registered with PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022308611 RESULTS: Eleven primary studies were identified, encompassing 364 RALS patients and 83 SLS patients, from which surgical details, operative and postoperative outcomes were extracted. In the RALS group, mean operating time was longer (235 ± 112 min) than in the standard laparoscopy group (171 ± 76 min) (p < 0.01). Patients in the RALS group experienced a shorter hospital stay (5.3 ± 3.5 days vs. 7.3 ± 4.1 days) (p < 0.01), and appeared to have fewer postoperative complications compared to standard laparoscopy. Research evidence for RALS in bowel DE is at an IDEAL Stage 2B of development.

CONCLUSION

RALS is a safe and feasible alternative to standard laparoscopy for bowel endometriosis treatment, with a shorter overall length of stay despite longer operating times. Further robust randomized trials recommended to delineate other potential advantages of RALS.

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.

Is transanal irrigation the best treatment possibility for low anterior resection syndrome? A multicenter, randomized clinical trial: study protocol

Background

Up to 50% of patients who undergo rectal resection suffer from various and partly severe functional problems, despite the preservation of the anal sphincter. These complaints are defined as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). So far, there are no randomized clinical trials regarding the most effective treatment for LARS. Our aim is to evaluate whether transanal irrigation improves bowel function and quality of life in patients following low anterior resection compared to best supportive care.

Methods

Patients who have undergone low anterior resection will be approached for this study. On patient's visit, complaints regarding the defecation as well as any deterioration in their overall quality of life will be assessed using questionnaires such as the Low Anterior Resection Syndromes score, Wexner score, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life (QOL) CR-29, and Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile tool. Few additional target questions will be also asked, such as "Would you recommend the treatment to anybody; did you expect the improvement following the treatment; etc." Questionnaires and scales will be filled on follow-up visits every 3 months for 1 year.

Discussion

This multicenter, randomized controlled trial will lead to a better understanding of LARS treatment. Moreover, it will be a hypothesis-generating study and will inform areas needing future prospective studies.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier (NCT05920681).

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.

Low anterior resection syndrome

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is the distressful defecatory functional problem after sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer. Although the symptoms of fecal urgency, frequency, and incontinence may develop in most of the patients after surgery, there is no definitive treatments for LARS. Multifactorial etiologies and various risk factors have been identified, but the reduction of storage capacity in the rectum is one of the main reasons for LARS. Anal sphincter muscle or nerve damage during rectoanal resection or anastomosis construction, and intersphincteric resection for low-lying tumors or hand-sewing anastomosis, are the absolute risk factors for LARS. Preoperative radiotherapy, postoperative complications, such as anastomosis leakage, or longer duration of stoma, are also risk factors. The severity of LARS can be confirmed using the LARS score questionnaire. The questionnaire has been translated to numerous language versions including Korean and have been validated. Diverse empirical treatments, such as loperamide, fiber, probiotics, or enema, have been tried, but the safety and efficacy have not been verified yet. The 5-Hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) receptor antagonist, ramosetron, used for diarrhea-dominant irritable bowel syndrome, is one potential drug for relieving the symptoms of major LARS. A randomized-controlled trial suggested the use of ramosetron could be safe and efficacious for patients who have major LARS after sphincter-saving rectal cancer surgery. Novel techniques or drugs for relieving the symptoms of LARS should be developed more and further studies are necessary.

Prospective cohort study of high-volume transanal irrigation in patients with constipation and/or faecal incontinence

AIM

The aim of this work was to determine the clinical efficacy of high-volume transanal irrigation (TAI) in patients with constipation and/or faecal incontinence using validated symptom and quality of life questionnaires.

METHOD

This was a prospective cohort study of 114 consecutive patients with constipation and/or faecal incontinence (Rome IV defined) who started TAI. A comprehensive questionnaire was completed at baseline and 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks' follow-up. The primary objective was significant symptom reduction [≥30%; Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS) and St Marks Incontinence Score (SMIS)] in those who continued TAI at 52 weeks. Secondary objectives were (1) continuation rates of TAI, (2) effect on quality of life (QoL) and (3) identification of predictors for continuation.

RESULTS

A total of 59 (51.8%) patients with constipation, 26 (22.8%) with faecal incontinence and 29 (25.4%) with coexistent symptoms were included. At 52 weeks, 41 (36.0%) patients continued TAI, 63 (55.2%) stopped and 10 (8.8%) patients were lost to follow-up. In those who continued TAI at 52 weeks (n = 41), no reduction of constipation symptoms was observed. Median Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life scores decreased on most domains, indicating QoL improvement. Reduction of faecal incontinence occurred in 5/9 (55.6%) patients with faecal incontinence and in 3/10 (30.0%) patients with coexistent symptoms. The median SMIS per-individual decreased in patients with coexistent symptoms (2; interquartile range 0-4; p = 0.023). Median Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scores increased in most domains, indicating improved QoL. No clinical characteristics predicted continuation.

CONCLUSION

One-third (n = 41) of patients continued TAI at 52 weeks. In those who continued TAI at 52 weeks, symptoms of faecal incontinence (SMIS) were reduced but not constipation (CCCS). QoL related to both constipation and faecal incontinence improved. No clinical characteristics predicted continuation.

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

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials on treating low anterior resection syndrome to help inform current practice.

METHODS

This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review of randomized clinical trials involved different treatments for low anterior resection syndrome. The risk of bias 2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The main outcomes were improvement in low anterior resection syndrome after treatment assessed by change in low anterior resection syndrome, fecal incontinence scores, and adverse treatment effects.

RESULTS

After an initial screening of 1,286 studies, 7 randomized clinical trials were included. Sample sizes ranged between 12 to 104 patients. Posterior tibial nerve stimulation was the most frequently assessed treatment in 3 randomized clinical trials. The weighted mean difference between posterior tibial nerve stimulation and medical treatment or sham therapy in follow-up low anterior resection syndrome score (-3.31, P = .157) was insignificant. Transanal irrigation reduced major low anterior resection syndrome symptoms by 61.5% compared with 28.6% after posterior tibial nerve stimulation with a significantly lower 6-month follow-up low anterior resection syndrome score. Pelvic floor training achieved better improvement in low anterior resection syndrome than standard care (47.8% vs 21.3%) at 6 months, but this was not maintained at 12 months (40.0% vs 34.9%). Ramosetron was associated with a greater short-term improvement in major low anterior resection syndrome (23% vs 8%) and a lower low anterior resection syndrome score (29.5 vs 34.6) at 4-weeks follow-up than Kegels or Sitz baths. No significant improvement in bowel function was noted after probiotics use as probiotics and placebo had similar follow-up low anterior resection syndrome scores (33.3 vs 36).

CONCLUSION

Transanal irrigation was associated with improvement in low anterior resection syndrome according to 2 trials, and ramosetron showed promising short-term results in one trial. Posterior tibial nerve stimulation had a marginal benefit compared with standard care. In contrast, pelvic floor training was associated with short-term symptomatic improvement, and probiotics showed no tangible improvement in low anterior resection syndrome symptoms. Firm conclusions cannot be drawn due to the small number of trials published.

'He's a surgeon, like I'm not going to waste his time': interviews to determine healthcare needs of people with low anterior resection syndrome after rectal cancer surgery

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the views of people on their healthcare needs when managing their bowel symptoms following an anterior resection.

METHOD

One-to-one, semi-structured interviews were undertaken, after consent and completion of three questionnaires. Results were analysed using a modified framework analysis and presented narratively.

RESULTS

Twenty three participants aged 38-75 years were interviewed; 10 were men. Most had low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) scores indicating 'major LARS', Bowel Function Index scores ranged from 28 to 65. The two most bothersome symptoms were faecal incontinence and unpredictable bowel function. Data were grouped into three broad themes: 'treatment consequences', 'strategies and compromises' and 'healthcare needs.' Each theme had four subthemes, such as 'bowel dysfunction' in the theme 'treatment consequences'. Bowel symptoms were common and persistent. Symptom management often required multiple interventions. Expressed healthcare needs included managing expectations through clinician-led information. Participants needed knowledgeable clinicians to enquire about and assess symptoms, provide and reiterate information as well as making an onward referral to enable symptom management. Peers improved the adaptation process through support and advice. Our findings indicate that participants' needs are not being fully met.

CONCLUSION

People with LARS have unmet healthcare requirements needed to meet their individual goals. We propose these are addressed by using the acronym 'LARS': a Learned clinician who Asks and assesses bowel symptoms, Revisiting the topic to address new or persisting symptoms as well as Signposting, advising or referring onwards as needed.