Hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer: technique and long-term outcome

The Impact of Enhanced Recovery on Long-Term Survival in Rectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Implementing perioperative interventions such as enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) has improved short-term outcomes and minimized length of stay. Preliminary evidence suggests that adherence to the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol may also enhance 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) in colorectal cancer surgery. This retrospective study presents long-term survival outcomes and disease recurrence from a high-volume, single-center practice.

METHODS

All patients over 18 years of age diagnosed with rectal adenocarcinoma and undergoing elective minimally invasive surgery (MIS) were retrospectively reviewed between February 2005 and April 2018. Relevant data were extracted from Mayo electronic records and securely stored in a database. Short-term morbidity and long-term oncological outcomes were compared between patients enrolled in ERP and those who received non-enhanced care.

RESULTS

Overall, 600 rectal cancer patients underwent MIS, of whom 320 (53.3%) were treated according to the ERP and 280 (46.7%) received non-enhanced care. ERP was associated with a decrease in length of stay (3 vs. 5 days; p < 0.001) and less overall complications (34.7 vs. 54.3%; p < 0.001). The ERP group did not show an improvement in overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) compared with non-enhanced care on multivariable (non-ERP vs. ERP OS: hazard ratio [HR] 1.268, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.852-1.887; DFS: HR 1.050, 95% CI 0.674-1.635) analysis.

CONCLUSION

ERP was found to be associated with a reduction in short-term morbidity, with no impact on long-term oncological outcomes, such as OS, CSS, and DFS.

How to perform an anastomosis following a low anterior resection by transanal total mesorectal excision surgery: from top to bottom techniques

AIM

The aim was to describe the range of possibilities and our group's clinical outcomes when performing different types of anastomosis during transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME).

METHOD

A retrospective analysis was performed based on four taTME series from 2016 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were patients with rectal cancer in whom a sphincter-saving low anterior resection by taTME was performed. Four different techniques were employed for the anastomosis construction: (A) abdominal view, (B) transanal view, (C) hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis and (D) pull-through. Intra-operative and postoperative data were collected and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 161 patients were included. Tumour height was lower in groups C and D (4 [3-5] vs. 7 [6-8] group A vs. 6 [5-7] group B, P = 0.000), requiring a hand-sewn anastomosis. A transanal extraction of the specimen was more commonly performed in groups C and D (over 60% vs. 30% in groups A and B, P = 0.000). The rate of temporary stoma was similar between groups A, B and C (ranging from 84% to 98%) but was significantly lower in group D (P = 0.000). The overall rate of complications was similar between groups; however, group D had longer length of stay (15 days vs. 5-6 in groups A, B and C, P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Every type of anastomosis construction after a taTME procedure seems to be safe and feasible and should be chosen based on surgeon's experience, tumour height and the length of the rectal cuff after the rectal transection. Colorectal surgeons should be familiar with these techniques in order to choose the one that benefits each patient the most.

Surgical outcomes of Turnbull-Cutait delayed coloanal anastomosis with pull-through versus immediate coloanal anastomosis with diverting stoma after total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Theoretical advantages of Turnbull-Cutait pull-through delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) are a reduced risk of anastomotic leak and therefore avoidance of stoma. Gradually abandoned in favor of immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA) with diverting stoma, DCAA has regained popularity in recent years in reconstructive surgery for low RC, especially when combined with minimally invasive surgery (MIS). The aim of this study was to perform the first meta-analysis, exploring the safety and outcomes of DCAA compared to ICAA with protective stoma.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL and Google Scholar databases was performed for studies published from January 2000 until December 2020. The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review on Interventions recommendations and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Out of 2626 studies screened, 9 were included in the systematic review and 4 studies in the meta-analysis. Outcomes included were postoperative complications, pelvic sepsis and risk of definitive stoma. Considering postoperative complications classified as Clavien-Dindo III, no significant difference existed in the rate of postoperative morbidity between DCAA and ICAA (13% versus 21%; OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.38-3.62; p = 0.78; I² = 20%). Patients in the DCAA group experienced a lower rate of postoperative pelvic sepsis compared with patients undergoing ICAA with diverting stoma (7% versus 14%; OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.16-0.85; p = 0.02; I² = 0%). The risk of definitive stoma was comparable between the two groups (2% versus 2% OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.15-3.85; p = 0.75; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the limited current evidence, DCAA is associated with a significant decrease in pelvic sepsis. Further prospective trials focusing on oncologic and functional outcomes are needed.

A Retrospective Study on the Feasibility of Completely Laparoscopic Transabdominal Approach Partial Intersphincteric Resection

Background: With the development of surgical techniques, gastrointestinal surgeons seek ways to improve the quality of life (QOL) for postoperative patients, while ensuring the tumor radical effect, such as reducing trauma, alleviating pain, and preserving the anus. This article discusses the postoperative outcomes of completely laparoscopic transabdominal approach partial intersphincteric resection (CLTPISR). Materials and Methods: The clinical data of 68 patients who underwent CLTPISR at the Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical College between May 2017 and June 2020, including procedure-related data, general postoperative conditions, and postoperative anal function data, were retrospectively analyzed to investigate the feasibility and safety of CLTPISR. Results: All 68 rectal cancer patients completed the CLTPISR. The average age was (60.47 ± 7.08) years, the average operative time was (196.22 ± 8.15) minutes, the mean operative bleeding was (49.12 ± 29.61) mL, and the average postoperative hospital stay was (13.46 ± 4.78) days. The postoperative pathology showed that the circumferential margins and distal margins were all negative, the maximum tumor diameter was (3.26 ± 1.11) cm, the distance from the anal verge was (3.92 ± 0.89) cm, and the average number of lymph nodes cleared was (11.06 ± 3.67). There were 28 stage I patients (41.18%), 21 stage II patients (30.88%), and 19 stage III patients (27.94%). The median follow-up time after surgery was 28 months, and the rates of distant metastasis, disease-free survival, and overall survival of the patients were 8.82%, 91.18%, and 95.59%, respectively. The patient's postoperative anal function gradually recovered as time increased. Conclusions: Under the premise of strictly grasping the indications, the CLTPISR is a safe and feasible surgery. It could achieve maximum anal preservation and improve patients' QOL, while maintaining the tumor radical effect, and had the advantages of the short operation time, low intraoperative bleeding, and quick recovery. The Clinical Trial Registration number is LL2020397.

Assessment and management of low anterior resection syndrome after sphincter preserving surgery for rectal cancer

Many patients develop a variety of bowel dysfunction after sphincter preserving surgeries (SPS) for rectal cancer. The bowel dysfunction usually manifests in the form of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), which has a negative impact on the patients’ quality of life. This study reviewed the LARS after SPS, its mechanism, risk factors, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment based on previously published studies. Adequate history taking, physical examination of the patients, using validated questionnaires and other diagnostic tools are important for assessment of LARS severity. Treatment of LARS should be tailored to each patient. Multimodal therapy is usually needed for patients with major LARS with acceptable results. The treatment includes conservative management in the form of medical, pelvic floor rehabilitation and transanal irrigation and invasive procedures including neuromodulation. If this treatment failed, fecal diversion may be needed. In conclusion, Initial meticulous dissection with preservation of nerves and creation of a neorectal reservoir during anastomosis and proper Kegel exercise of the anal sphincter can minimize the occurrence of LARS. Pre-treatment counseling is an essential step for patients who have risk factors for developing LARS.

Oncologic safety and bowel function after ultralow anterior resection with or without intersphincteric resection for low lying rectal cancer: Comparative cross sectional study

BACKGROUND

Despite acceptable oncologic outcomes of sphincter preserving surgeries for low rectal cancer, bowel dysfunction occurs. This study aimed to compare the oncologic and functional bowel outcomes between ultralow anterior resection (ULAR) and intersphincteric resection (ISR) for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

One hundred sixty-four patients who underwent ULAR with or without ISR for low rectal cancer between December 2010 and May 2018 were included. The Wexner and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) scores were used to evaluate the bowel function of patients. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared between patients.

RESULTS

The ISR group had higher incidence of major fecal incontinence than the ULAR group (75.9% vs 49.3%; P = .016). The median Wexner score decreased from 12 to 9 (P = .062) at 1-year follow-up. However, the frequency and urgency/soilage subscales of MSKCC score improved significantly in the ULAR group. ISR and follow-up interval less than 1-year significantly increased the major incontinence risk. The OS in the ULAR and ISR groups was 91.4% and 91.7%. Whereas the DFS in both groups was 79% and 79.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

ULAR and ISR are comparable in oncologic outcomes. Severe bowel dysfunctions and major incontinence were noted in ISR group. Careful selection of patients is mandatory.

Delayed Colo-anal Anastomosis for Rectal Cancer: Pelvic Morbidity, Functional Results and Oncological Outcomes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Delayed colo-anal anastomosis (DCAA) has received renewed interest thanks to its reduction in anastomotic leakage rate without the use of stoma to protect a low rectal anastomosis. The aim of this review was to summarize the available literature on DCAA following rectal cancer resection and to report clinical, oncological and functional results.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted including MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews through July 2018. The review was conducted according to MOOSE guidelines. Quality was appraised with the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) tool.

RESULTS

Eight observational studies (409 patients) were included. Average MINORS score was 9.6/14 in seven non-comparative studies and 17/22 in one comparative study. Six studies reported no anastomotic leak. Pelvic sepsis/abscess ranged from 0 to 25%. Mortality rate was <3% in seven studies and 12.5% in one. Poor fecal continence was reported in <30% of patients. Need for permanent stoma was ≤2% in six studies. A five-year survival rate ranged from 63.8 to 81% (four studies). Loco-regional recurrence rate ranged from 4.8 to 14.3% at 3 years (four studies) and from 6 to 38.8% at 5 years (three studies).

CONCLUSION

DCAA offers an alternative to primary straight colo-anal anastomosis for low rectal cancer. The benefits include reduced risk of anastomotic leakage and pelvic sepsis, and no need for protective ileostomy, with good functional and oncological outcomes. Results of ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing DCAA with straight colo-anal anastomosis and protective stoma are awaited to draw definitive conclusions.

Oncologic outcomes for low rectal adenocarcinoma following low anterior resection with coloanal anastomosis versus abdominoperineal resection: a National Cancer Database propensity matched analysis

PURPOSE

Low anterior resection with coloanal anastomosis (CAA) for low rectal cancer is a technically difficult operation with limited data available on oncologic outcomes. We aim to investigate overall survival and operative oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent CAA compared to abdominoperineal resection (APR).

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (2004-2013) was used to identify patients with non-metastatic rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent CAA or APR. Patients were 1:1 matched on age, gender, Charlson score, tumor size, tumor grade, pathologic stage, and radiation treatment with propensity scores. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and resection margins.

RESULTS

Following matching, 3536 patients remained in each group. No significant differences in matched demographic, treatment, or tumor variables were seen between groups. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (1.24% vs. 1.39%, p = 0.60). Following resection, margins were more likely to be negative after CAA compared with APR (5.26% vs. 8.14%, p < 0.001). When stratified by pathologic stage, there was a significant survival advantage for individuals undergoing CAA compared to APR (stage 1 HR 0.72, [95% CI 0.62-0.85], p < 0.001; stage 2 HR 0.76, [95% CI 0.65-0.88], p < 0.001; stage 3 HR 0.76, [95% CI 0.67-0.85], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing CAA compared with APR for rectal cancer have better overall survival and are less likely to have positive margins despite the technically challenging operation.

Functional outcomes with handsewn versus stapled anastomoses in the treatment of ultralow rectal cancer

Adequate oncological outcomes have been demonstrated with rectal resection and handsewn coloanal anastomosis (CAA) in tumours in close proximity to the internal anal sphincter. Our aim was to assess functional differences between handsewn CAA and ultralow stapled anastomosis. Participants were identified from a single-surgeon series. Included participants underwent anorectal physiology testing of anal sphincter function, in addition to completion of several questionnaires: Wexner Incontinence Score (WIS); Birmingham Bowel, Bladder and Urinary Symptom Questionnaire (BBUSQ); Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) Score; SF36. Non-parametric data compared using the Mann–Whitney U test. 20 participants were included; 11 stapled and 9 handsewn. Mean follow-up was 2.95 ± 1.97 years. The mean LARS score was 21.9 ± 1.97 years in the stapled group versus 29.4 ± 9.57 in the handsewn group (p = 0.133). The Wexner incontinence score was significantly higher in the handsewn group (p = 0.0076), with a mean score of 4.6 ± 3.69 versus 10.9 ± 4.76. The incontinence domain of the BBUSQ was also significantly worse in patients with a handsewn anastomosis (p = 0.001). With the exception of general health (p = 0.035) and social functioning (p = 0.035), which were worse in the handsewn groups, the other six domains of the SF-36 showed no statistical difference between groups. Anorectal physiology scores were not significantly different. Handsewn CAA anastomosis is known to be safe and oncologically feasible. Patient selection should be vigorous, with preoperative counseling regarding the likelihood of incontinence to manage patients’ expectations and promote comparable quality of life in the long-term.

Clinical and functional results of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for ultralow rectal cancer: is there a distinction between the three types of hand-sewn colo-anal anastomosis?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of three types of hand-sewn colo-anal anastomosis (CAA) after laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (Lap-ISR) for patients with ultralow rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 79 consecutive patients treated by Lap-ISR for low-lying rectal cancer in an academic medical center from June 2011 to February 2016. According to the distal tumor margin and individualized anal length, the patients underwent three types of hand-sewn CAA including partial-ISR, subtotal-ISR, and total-ISR.

RESULTS

Of the 79 patients, 35.4% required partial-ISR, 43% adopted subtotal-ISR, and 21.5% underwent total-ISR. R0 resection was achieved in 78 patients (98.7%). In addition to distal resection margin, there were no significant differences in clinicopathological parameters and postoperative complications between the three groups. The type of hand-sewn CAA did not influence the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) or local relapse-free survival (LFS). At 24-months follow-up, in spite of higher incontinence scores in total-ISR group, there were not statistically significant differences in functional outcomes including Wexner score or Kirwan grade between the groups. Nevertheless, patients with chronic anastomotic stricture showed worse anal function than those without the complication.

CONCLUSION

The type of hand-sewn CAA after Lap-ISR may not influence oncological and functional outcomes, but chronic stricture deteriorates continence status.