The risk of definitive stoma formation at 10 years after low and ultralow anterior resection for rectal cancer

Risk factors and incidence of non-closure stoma in patients with anterior resection of rectal cancer with temporary stoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To further define the risk factors and incidence of non-closure stoma in patients with anterior resection of rectal cancer with temporary stoma.

METHODS

Records from five English databases and four Chinese databases. Odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were used to indicate the risk of inclusion of risk factors. The non-closure stoma rate used the risk difference (RD) and 95 % CI. Risk factors were evaluated for quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Risk factors of non-closure stoma in patients with anterior resection of rectal cancer with temporary stoma were Age ≥60 years[OR:1.57, 95%CI(1.44,1.72)], Tumor IV stage[OR:4.21, 95%CI(2.29,7.74)], American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)≥3[OR:1.48, 95%CI(1.33,1.65)], Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy[OR:1.41, 95%CI(1.09,1.82)],Open surgery[OR:1.45, 95%CI(1.09,1.93)], Postoperative chemotherapy[OR:1.37, 95%CI(1.03,1.82)], Anastomotic leakage[OR:4.61, 95%CI(2.86, 7.44)], Local recurrence[OR:7.16, 95%CI(4.70, 10.91)]. The rate of non-closure stoma after anterior resection for rectal cancer was: 0.20, 95 % CI (0.17, 0.23). The quality of evidence for stage IV tumors and anastomotic leakage was moderate, and other risk factors were low to very low.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk factors of non-closure stoma in patients with anterior resection of rectal cancer with temporary stoma were Age≥60 years, Tumor IV stage, ASA≥3, Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, Open surgery, Postoperative chemotherapy, Anastomotic leakage, Local recurrence, and one in five anterior resection patients with a temporary stoma fails to close.

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.

Protective ileostomy after low anterior resection for extraperitoneal rectal cancer: does the reversal surgery timing affect closure failure?

Loop ileostomy is commonly performed after LAR with TME to temporarily protect the anastomosis. Usually, defunctioning stoma is closed after 1-6 months, although sometimes it becomes definitive de facto. The aim of this study is to investigate the long-term risk of no-reversal of protective ileostomy after LAR for middle-low rectal cancer and the predictive risk factors. A retrospective analysis of a consecutive cohort of patients who underwent curative LAR with covering ileostomy for extraperitoneal rectal cancer in two colorectal units was performed. A different policy for scheduling stoma closure was applied between centers. All the data were collected through an electronic database (Microsoft Excel®). Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact and Student's t test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted. Two-hundred twenty-two patients were analysed: reversal procedure was carried out in 193 patients, in 29 cases stoma was never closed. The mean interval time from index surgery was 4.9 months (Center1: 3 vs. Center2: 7.8). At the univariate analysis, mean age and tumor stage were significantly higher in the "no-reversal" group. Unclosed ostomies were significantly lower in Center 1 than Center 2 (8% vs. 19.6%). At the multivariate analysis female gender, anastomotic leakage and Center 2 had significant higher risk of unclosed ileostomy. Currently, no clinical recommendations have been established and the policy of scheduling stoma reversal is variable. Our study suggests that an established protocol could avoid closure delay, decreasing permanent stomas. Consequently, ileostomy closure should be weighed as standardized step in cancer therapeutic pathway.

Evaluation of the SafeHeal Colovac+ anastomosis protection device after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: the safe anastomosis feasibility evaluation (SAFE) 2019 trial

BACKGROUND

Protective ileostomy (PI) is the current standard of care to protect the anastomosis after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer, but is associated with significant morbidity. Colovac is an anastomosis protection device designed to shield the anastomosis from fecal content. A second version (Colovac+) was developed to limit the migration risk during the implantation period. The objective of this clinical trial was to evaluate the preliminary efficacy and safety of the Colovac+.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, pilot study aiming to enroll 15 patients undergoing LAR with Colovac+ placement. After 10 days, a CT scan was performed to evaluate the anastomosis and the Colovac+ was retrieved endoscopically. During the 10-day implantation and 3-month follow-up period, we collected data regarding predefined efficacy and safety endpoints. The primary endpoint was the rate of major (Clavien-Dindo III-V) postoperative complications related to the Colovac+ or LAR procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 25 patients were included (68% male), of whom 15 were consecutively treated with the Colovac+ and Vacuum Loss Alert System. The Colovac+ was successfully implanted in all 15 patients. No major discomfort was reported during the implantation period. The endoscopic retrieval was performed in 14/15 (93%) patients. The overall major postoperative morbidity rate was 40%, but none of the reported complications were related to the Colovac+. A device migration occurred in 2 (13%) patients, but these were not associated with AL or stoma conversion. Overall, Colovac+ provided effective fecal diversion in all 15 patients and was able to avoid the PI in 11/15 (73%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Colovac+ provides a safe and effective protection of the anastomosis after LAR, and avoids the PI in the majority (73%) of patients. The improved design reduces the overall migration rate and limits the clinical impact of a migration.

Tools to assess employment readiness for colorectal cancer survivors: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The ability to return to work and remain at work is an important recovery milestone after a cancer diagnosis. With the projected number of colorectal cancer patients of working age likely to increase, it is important to identify when a person is ready to resume work. There are many employment-related tools available to help people return to work after injury or illness; however, it is unknown which may be suitable for a person with colorectal cancer.

AIM

To identify tools related to employment readiness in colorectal cancer survivors and to chart the relevant factors of employment assessed by these tools.

METHOD

Literature searches were performed in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase and Medline, the Cochrane library and PsycINFO using search terms around cancer, survivorship and employment to identify all peer-reviewed articles published in English up to June 2022.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies used a total of 77 tools focused on assessing employment issues experienced by people with cancer in general. Four tools were used with colorectal cancer survivors. None considered all relevant employment-related factors for colorectal cancer survivors.

CONCLUSION

Tools used to identify return-to-work and remain-at-work were not specific to colorectal cancer. There are a range of existing tools that collate some, but not all, of the domains and outcome criteria required to meet the employment needs of colorectal cancer survivors. To optimize work outcomes for the working colorectal cancer population, a specified tool is warranted.

Ileostomy versus colostomy: impact on functional outcomes after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

AIM

Even if a defunctioning stoma mitigates the serious consequences of anastomotic leakage after total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer, the presence of a temporary stoma or having a stoma for a prolonged period of time may also be a determining factor for further morbidities and poor bowel function. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of diverting stomas on clinical and functional outcomes after TME, comparing ileostomy or colostomy effects.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent TME for rectal cancer between March 2017 and December 2020 in three Italian referral centres were enrolled in the present study. For every patient sex, age, stage of the tumour, neoadjuvant therapy, surgical technique, anastomotic technique, the presence of a diverting stoma, perioperative complications and functional postoperative status were recorded. Considering the diverting stoma, the kind of stoma, length of time before closure and stoma related complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

During the study period 416 consecutive patients (63% men) were included. Preoperative neoadjuvant therapy was performed in 79%. A minimally invasive approach was performed in >95% of patients. Temporary stoma was performed during the operation in 387 patients (93%) (ileostomy 71%, colostomy 21%). The stoma was closed in 84% of patients. The median time from surgery to stoma closure was 145 days. No difference was found between ileostomy and colostomy in overall morbidity after stoma creation and closure. Moreover, increased postoperative functional disturbance seemed to be significantly proportional to the attending time for closure for ileostomy.

CONCLUSION

The presence of a defunctioning stoma seems to have a negative impact on functional bowel activity, especially for delayed closure for ileostomy. This should be considered when the kind of stoma (ileostomy vs. colostomy) is selected for each patient.

A multi-centre randomized controlled trial investigating Consolidation Chemotherapy with and without oxaliplatin in distal rectal cancer and Watch & Wait

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation(nCRT) has been considered the preferred initial treatment strategy for distal rectal cancer. Advantages of this approach include improved local control after radical surgery but also the opportunity for organ preserving strategies (Watch and Wait-WW). Consolidation chemotherapy(cCT) regimens using fluoropyrimidine-based with or without oxalipatin following nCRT have demonstrated to increase complete response and organ preservation rates among these patients. However, the benefit of adding oxaliplatin to cCT compared to fluoropirimidine alone regimens in terms of primary tumor response remains unclear. Since oxalipatin-treatment may be associated with considerable toxicity, it becomes imperative to understand the benefit of its incorporation into standard cCT regimens in terms of primary tumor response. The aim of the present trial is to compare the outcomes of 2 different cCT regimens following nCRT (fluoropyrimidine-alone versus fluoropyrimidine + oxaliplatin) for patients with distal rectal cancer.

METHODS

In this multi-centre study, patients with magnetic resonance-defined distal rectal tumors will be randomized on a 1:1 ratio to receive long-course chemoradiation (54 Gy) followed by cCT with fluoropyrimidine alone versus fluoropyrimidine + oxaliplatin. Magnetic resonance(MR) will be analyzed centrally prior to patient inclusion and randomization. mrT2-3N0-1 tumor located no more than 1 cm above the anorectal ring determined by sagittal views on MR will be eligible for the study. Tumor response will be assessed after 12 weeks from radiotherapy(RT) completion. Patients with clinical complete response (clinical, endoscopic and radiological) may be enrolled in an organ-preservation program(WW). The primary endpoint of this trial is decision to organ-preservation surveillance (WW) at 18 weeks from RT completion. Secondary endpoints are 3-year surgery-free survival, TME-free survival, distant metastases-free survival, local regrowth-free survival and colostomy-free survival.

DISCUSSION

Long-course nCRT with cCT is associated with improved complete response rates and may be a very attractive alternative to increase the chances for organ-preservation strategies. Fluoropyrimidine-based cCT with or without oxaliplatin has never been investigated in the setting of a randomized trial to compare clinical response rates and the possibility of organ-preservation. The outcomes of this study may significantly impact clinical practice of patients with distal rectal cancer interested in organ-preservation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov NCT05000697; registered on August 11^th, 2021.

Effects of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy for anorectal function in locally advanced rectal cancer patients: a study protocol for a prospective, observational, controlled, multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) and total mesorectal excision are standard treatment regimen for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). This sphincter-saving treatment strategy may be accompanied by a series of anorectal functional disorders. Yet, prospective studies that dynamically evaluating the respective roles of radiotherapy, chemotherapy and surgery on anorectal function are lacking.

PATIENTS/DESIGN

The study is a prospective, observational, controlled, multicentre study. After screening for eligibility and obtaining informed consent, a total of 402 LARC patients undergoing NCRT followed by surgery, or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery, or surgery only would be included in the trial. The primary outcome measure is the average resting pressure of anal sphincter. The secondary outcome measures are maximum anal sphincter contraction pressure, Wexner continence score and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score. Evaluations will be carried out at the following stages: baseline (T1), after radiotherapy or chemotherapy (before surgery, T2), after surgery (before closing the temporary stoma, T3), and at follow-up visits (every 3 to 6 months, T4, T5……). Follow-up for each patient will be at least 2 years.

DISCUSSION

We expect the program to provide more information of neoadjuvant radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy on anorectal function, and to optimize the treatment strategy to reduce anorectal dysfunction for LARC patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05671809). Registered on 26 December 2022.

Watch and Wait Approach for Rectal Cancer

The administration of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by total mesorrectal excision (TME) and selective use of adjuvant chemotherapy can still be considered the standard of care in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). However, avoiding sequelae of TME and entering a narrow follow-up program of watch and wait (W&W), in select cases that achieve a comparable clinical complete response (cCR) to nCRT, is now very attractive to both patients and clinicians. Many advances based on well-designed studies and long-term data coming from big multicenter cohorts have drawn some important conclusions and warnings regarding this strategy. In order to safely implement W&W, it is important consider proper selection of cases, best treatment options, surveillance strategy and the attitudes towards near complete responses or even tumor regrowth. The present review offers a comprehensive overview of W&W strategy from its origins to the most current literature, from a practical point of view focused on daily clinical practice, without losing sight of the most important future prospects in this area.

Permanent stoma after sphincter preservation for rectal cancer. A situation that occurs more often than you might think

Objectives

This study aimed: (i) to assess the cumulative incidence of permanent stoma (PS) after sphincter-preserving surgery (SPS) for rectal cancer (RC): (ii) to analyze associated risk factors for primary and secondary PS; and (iii) to compare the long-term survival of patients according to the stoma state.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective single-center cohort study based on a prospectively maintained database of SRC patients undergoing SPS from January 2007 to December 2017. Incidence of both primary (no reversal of defunctioning stoma) and secondary (created after closure of defunctioning stoma) PS were investigated. Associations between potential risk factors and PS were analyzed using a logistic regression model. Cumulative survival curve was drawn by Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

Of the 257 eligible patients, 43 patients (16.7%) had a PS (16 primary PS and 27 secondary PS) after a median follow-up of 4.8 years. In multivariate analysis, the independent risk factors for primary PS were severe post-operative complications (OR 3.66; 95% CI, 1.19-11.20, p=0.022), and old age (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.04-1.18, p=0.001) and those for secondary PS were local recurrence (OR 38.07; 95% CI 11.07-130.9, p<0.0001), anastomotic leakage (OR 7.01; 95% CI, 2.23-22.04, p=0.009), and severe post-operative complications (OR 3.67; 95% CI, 1.22-11.04, p=0.02), respectively. Both overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were significantly lower in patients with a PS compared with patients with SPS (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

This present study suggests that one out of 6 patients has a PS, 5 years after rectal resection with SPS for SRC.

Short- and long-term outcomes in ypT2 rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy and local excision: a multicentre observational study

BACKGROUND

Although local excision (LE) after neoadjuvant treatment (NT) has achieved encouraging oncological outcomes in selected patients, radical surgery still remains the rule when unfavorable pathology occurs. However, there is a risk of undertreating patients not eligible for radical surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients with pathological incomplete response (ypT2) in a multicentre cohort of patients undergoing LE after NT and to compare them with ypT0-is-1 rectal cancers.

METHODS

From 2010 to 2019, all patients who underwent LE after NT for rectal cancer were identified from five institutional retrospective databases. After excluding 12 patients with ypT3 tumors, patients with ypT2 tumors were compared to patients with ypT0-is-1 tumors). The endpoints of the study were early postoperative and long-term oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 177 patients (132 males, 45 females, median age 70 [IQR 16] years) underwent LE following NT. There were 46 ypT2 patients (39 males, 7 females, median age 72 [IQR 18.25] years) and 119 ypT0-is-1 patients (83 males, 36 females, median age 69 [IQR 15] years). Patients with pathological incomplete response (ypT2) were frailer than the ypT0-is-1 patients (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index 6.15 ± 2.43 vs. 5.29 ± 1.99; p = 0.02) and there was a significant difference in the type of NT used for the two groups (long- course radiotherapy: 100 (84%) vs. 23 (63%), p = 0.006; short-course radiotherapy: 19 (16%) vs. 17 (37%), p = 0.006). The postoperative rectal bleeding rate (13% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.008), readmission rate (10.9% vs. 0.8%; p = 0.008) and R1 resection rate (8.7% vs. 0; p = 0.008) was significantly higher in the ypT2 group. Recurrence rates were comparable between groups (5% vs. 13%; p = 0.15). Five-year overall survival was 91.3% and 94.9% in the ypT2 and ypT0-is-1 groups, respectively (p = 0.39), while 5-year cancer specific survival was 93.4% in the ypT2 group and 94.9% in the ypT0-is-1 group (p = 0.70). No difference was found in terms of 5-year local recurrence free-survival (p = 0.18) and 5-year distant recurrence free-survival (p = 0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ypT2 tumors after NT and LE have a higher risk of late-onset rectal bleeding and positive resection margins than patients with complete or near complete response. However, long-term recurrence rates and survival seem comparable.

Cost‐effectiveness comparison of delayed versus immediate coloanal anastomosis following ultralow anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Following ultralow anterior resection for distal rectal cancers, a coloanal anastomosis is usually created along with a defunctioning ileostomy (DI). Recent evidence suggests that abdominoperineal pull-through with delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) is a viable alternative to immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA), minimizing the risk of anastomotic leakage and avoiding the need for stoma creation with the risk of stoma-associated morbidity. However, DCAA requires a longer initial hospitalization. We aimed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare DCAA versus ICAA for elective rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A decision tree model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two strategies. Cost data were obtained from the 2019 to 2020 United Kingdom National Health Service reference costs. Model probabilities were derived from published studies. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

DCAA was the overall cheaper strategy at £13 541 compared with £14 856 for ICAA in the base case analysis. This was explained by the decreased overall costs of hospitalization/surgery, reduction in costs associated with anastomotic or stoma-related complications, specifically dehydration-induced hospital readmissions and avoidance of stoma maintenance costs. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that DCAA remained consistently more inexpensive except when the duration of total parenteral nutrition exceeded 14 days.

CONCLUSION

Despite a longer index hospitalization with higher initial costs, this economic analysis demonstrates that DCAA without stoma is overall more cost-effective compared with ICAA with DI following ultralow anterior resection. Cost savings should be considered an additional benefit when selecting the DCAA approach for rectal cancer surgery.

Nomogram to predict permanent stoma in rectal cancer patients after sphincter-saving surgery

BACKGROUND

Approximately 20 percent of patients with a tumour localized in the low rectum still encounter the possibility of requiring permanent stoma (PS), which can cause drastic changes in lifestyle and physical perceptions.

AIM

To determine the risk factors for PS and to develop a prediction model to predict the probability of PS in rectal cancer patients after sphincter-saving surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 421 rectal cancer patients who underwent radical surgery at Taipei Medical University Hospital between January 2012 and December 2020 was included in this study. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the independent risk factors for PS. A nomogram was developed according to the independent risk factors obtained in the multivariate analysis. The performance of the nomogram was assessed using a receiver operating characteristic curve and a calibration curve.

RESULTS

The PS rate after sphincter-saving surgery was 15.1% (59/391) in our study after a median follow-up of 47.3 mo (range 7–114 mo). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that local recurrence, perirectal abscess, anastomosis site stenosis, perineural invasion, tumor size and operative time were independent risk factors for PS. These identified risk factors were incorporated into the nomogram, and the concordance index of this model was 0.903 (95%CI: 0.851-0.955). According to the calibration curves, the nomogram represents a perfect prediction model.

CONCLUSION

Several risk factors for PS after sphincter-saving surgery were identified. Our nomogram exhibited perfect predictive ability and will improve a physician’s ability to communicate the benefits and risks of various treatment options in shared decision making.

Towards personalized treatment of T2N0 rectal cancer: A systematic review of long-term oncological outcomes of neoadjuvant therapy followed by local excision

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Total mesorectal excision (TME) remains the treatment of choice in T2N0 tumors. However, evidence suggest that one-size-fits-all approach is not always beneficial for this group of patients. The aim of this study is to synthesize data on long-term outcomes after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) followed by local excision (LE) in T2N0 rectal cancer patients in the perspective of a rectal-preserving strategy.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases was conducted until October 2021 to identify studies comparing LE after NAT and TME or reporting oncologic outcomes after conservative approach. A pooled analysis was conducted using a fixed-effect model in the case of non-significant heterogeneity (P > 0.1), and a random effect model (DerSimonian-Laird method) when significant heterogeneity was present (P < 0.1) CRD42022300344.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the analysis. Three of them were comparative studies. The pooled 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS, 3-year OS, 5-year OS, local and distant recurrence rates were 92.8% (95% CI 81.6-99.5%), 91.3% (95% CI 88.3-94.3%), 96.1% (95% CI 90.5-100%), 72.6% (95% CI 57.5-87.7%), 4% (95% CI 18-63%), and 4.9% (95% CI 2-7.8%), respectively, in subjects treated with NAT followed by LE. No heterogeneity was found for all these analyses, except for the 5-year OS sub-analysis (I² 95.5%, P < 0.001). Complete pathological response (ypT0) rate after NAT and LE ranges from 26.7% to 59%.

CONCLUSION

LE following neoadjuvant CRT may provide comparable survival benefit to radical surgery for patients with clinical stage T2N0 in selected patients although the evidence is still limited to provide solid recommendations. A personalized therapeutic approach taking into account tumor and patient-related factors should be considered.

STUDY OF ANORECTAL PHYSIOLOGY PRE AND POS NEOADJUVANT THERAPY FOR RECTAL CANCER BY ANORECTAL MANOMETRY AND JORGE-WEXNER SCORE

BACKGROUND

The treatment of distal rectal cancer may be accompanied by evacuation disorders of multifactorial etiology. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) is part of the standard treatment for patients with locally advanced extraperitoneal rectal cancer. The assessment of anorectal function after long-term NCRT in patients with cancer of the extraperitoneal rectum has been poorly evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of NCRT on anorectal function and continence in patients with extraperitoneal rectal cancer.

METHODS

Rectal adenocarcinoma patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy were submitted to functional evaluation by anorectal manometry and the degree of fecal incontinence using the Jorge-Wexner score, before and eight weeks after NCRT. The manometric parameters evaluated were mean resting anal pressure (ARp), maximum voluntary contraction anal pressure (MaxSp) and average voluntary contraction anal pressure (ASp). All patients underwent the same NCRT protocol based on the application of fluoropyrimidine (5-FU) at a dosage of 350 mg/m2 associated with folic acid at a dosage of 20 mg/m2, intravenously, in the first and last week of treatment, concomitantly with conformational radiotherapy with a total dose of 50.4Gy, divided into 28 daily fractions of 1.8Gy. For statistical analysis of the quantitative variables with normal distribution, the mean, standard deviation, median and interquartile range were calculated. For comparison of two related samples (before and eight weeks after NCRT), Wilcoxon's non-parametric test was used.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients with rectal cancer were included in the study, with a mean age of 62.8 (39-81) years, 36 (75%) of whom were male. The use of NCRT was associated with a decrease in the values of ARp (55.0 mmHg vs 39.1 mmHg, P<0.05) and ASp (161.9 mmHg vs 141.9 mmHg, P<0.05) without changing MaxSp values (185,5 mmHg vs 173 mmHg, P=0.05). There was no worsening of the incontinence score eight weeks after the use of NCRT (3.0 vs 3.3; P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

NCRT was associated with a reduction in the values of ARp and the ASp. There was no change in MaxSp, as well as in the degree of fecal continence by the Jorge-Wexner score.

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.

Cumulative Incidence and Risk Factors of Permanent Stoma After Intersphincteric Resection for Ultralow Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

A permanent stoma is an unintended consequence that cannot be avoided completely after intersphincteric resection for ultralow rectal cancer. Unfortunately, its incidence and risk factors have been poorly defined.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to determine the cumulative incidence and risk factors of permanent stoma after intersphincteric resection for ultralow rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a colorectal surgery referral center.

PATIENTS

A total of 185 consecutive patients who underwent intersphincteric resection with diverting ileostomy from 2011 to 2019 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the incidence of and risk factors for the permanent stoma. The secondary outcome included differences in stoma formation between patients with partial, subtotal, and total intersphincteric resection.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 40 months (range, 6-107 months), 26 of 185 patients eventually required a permanent stoma, accounting for a 5-year cumulative incidence of 17.4%. The causes of permanent stoma were anastomotic morbidity (46.2%, 12/26), local recurrence (19.2%, 5/26), distant metastasis (19.2%, 5/26), fecal incontinence (3.8%, 1/26), perioperative mortality (3.8%, 1/26), patients' refusal (3.8%, 1/26), and poor general condition (3.8%, 1/26). Although the incidence of permanent stoma was significantly different between the intersphincteric resection groups (partial vs subtotal vs total: 8.3% vs 20% vs 25.8%, p = 0.02), it was not an independent predictor of stoma formation. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that anastomotic leakage (OR = 5.29; p = 0.001) and anastomotic stricture (OR = 5.13; p = 0.002) were independently predictive of permanent stoma.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective nature and single-center data.

CONCLUSIONS

The 5-year cumulative incidence of permanent stoma was 17.4%. Anastomotic complications were identified as risk factors. Patients should be informed of the risks and benefits when contemplating the ultimate sphincter-sparing surgery. It might be preferable to decrease the probability of permanent stoma by further minimizing anastomotic complications. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B704.

INCIDENCIA ACUMULADA Y FACTORES DE RIESGO DE ESTOMA PERMANENTE DESPUS DE UNA RESECCIN INTERESFNTRICA EN CNCER RECTAL ULTRA BAJO

ANTECEDENTES:La necesidad de efectuar un estoma permanente es la consecuencia no intencional e inevitable por completo después de una resección interesfintérica en presencia de un cáncer rectal ultra bajo. Desafortunadamente, la incidencia y los factores de riesgo se han definido en una forma limitada.OBJETIVO:El objetivo fue determinar la incidencia acumulada y los factores de riesgo para la necesidad de efectuar un estoma permanente después de la resección intersfintérica de un cáncer rectal ultra bajo.DISEÑO:El presente estudio es un análisis retrospectivo de la información obtenida.ESCENARIO:Centro de referencia de cirugía colo-rectal.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron un total de 185 pacientes consecutivos que se sometieron a resección intersfintérica de un cáncer rectal ultra bajo con ileostomía de derivación de 2011 a 2019.MEDICION DE RESULTADOS:El resultado principal fue la identificación de la incidencia y los factores de riesgo para la presencia de un estoma permanente. En forma secundaria se describieron los resultados de las diferentes técnicas de la formación de un estoma entre los pacientes con resección interesfintérica parcial, subtotal o total.RESULTADOS:Posterior a una media de seguimiento de cuarenta meses (rango de 6 a 107), 26 de 185 pacientes requirieron en forma eventual un estoma permanente, lo que equivale a una incidencia acumulada a cinco años de 17.4 %. Las causas para dejar un estoma permanente fueron morbilidad de la anastomosis (46.2%, 12/26), recurrencia local (19.2%, 5/26), metástasis a distancia (19.2%, 5/26), incontinencia fecal (3.8%, 1/26), mortalidad perioperatoria (3.8%, 1/26), rechazo del paciente (3.8%, 1/26), y malas condiciones generales (3.8%, 1/26). Aunque la incidencia de un estoma permanente fue significativamente diferente entre los grupos de resección interesfintérica (parcial vs subtotal vs total: 8.3% vs 20% vs 25.8%, p = 0.02), no se consideró un factor predictor independiente para la formación de estoma. En el análisis multivariado se demostró que la fuga anatomótica (OR = 5.29; p = 0.001) y la estenosis anastomótica (OR = 5.13; p = 0.002) fueron factores independientes para predecir la necesidad de un estoma permanente.LIMITACIONES:La naturaleza retrospectiva del estudio y la información proveniente de un solo centro.CONCLUSIONES:La incidencia acumulada a cinco años de estoma permantente fue de 17.4%. Se consideran a las complicaciones anastomóticas como factores de riesgo. Los pacientes deberán ser informados de los riesgos y beneficios cuando se considere la posibilidad de efectuar una cirugía preservadora de esfínteres finalmente. Puede ser preferible disminuir la probabilidad de dejar un estoma permanente tratando de minimizar la posibilidad de complicaciones de la anastomosis. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B704.

Organ Preservation in Patients with Rectal Cancer Treated with Total Neoadjuvant Therapy

BACKGROUND

Retrospective studies suggest that watch-and-wait is a safe alternative to total mesorectal excision in selected patients with a clinical complete response after chemoradiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the proportion of patients with rectal cancer who may benefit from watch-and-wait.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective analysis of data from prospectively maintained databases.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients with stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma who were treated with total neoadjuvant therapy using induction chemotherapy between 2012 and 2019 under the care of the same surgeon were included.

INTERVENTION

Induction-type total neoadjuvant therapy consisted of 8 cycles of leucovorin-fluorouracil-oxaliplatin or 5 cycles of capecitabine-oxaliplatin before chemoradiotherapy. Patients with a clinical complete response were offered watch-and-wait, and patients with residual tumor were offered total mesorectal excision.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Tumor response was assessed with a digital rectal examination, endoscopy, and MRI. Patient characteristics and recurrence-free survival were compared between the watch-and-wait group and the total mesorectal excision group.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients were included in the analysis. One (1%) died during neoadjuvant therapy. Fifty-five patients (62.5%) had an incomplete clinical response and underwent surgery, 10 (18%) of the 55 developed distant metastasis, and 3 (5%) developed local recurrence. The remaining 32 patients (36.3%) had a clinical complete response and underwent watch-and-wait. On average, patients in the watch-and-wait group were older and had smaller, more distal tumors compared with patients in the surgery group. The median radiation dose, number of chemotherapy cycles, rate of adverse events, and length of follow-up did not differ substantively between the total mesorectal excision group and the watch-and-wait group. In the watch-and-wait group, 2 (6%) patients developed tumor regrowth, and one of them had distant metastasis. Recurrence-free survival was significantly higher in the watch-and-wait group.

LIMITATIONS

Generalizability, sample size, and follow-up duration were limitations of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-third of patients with stage II or III rectal cancer can benefit from a watch-and-wait approach with the aim of preserving the rectum if treated with induction-type total neoadjuvant therapy and followed by an experienced multidisciplinary team. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B688.

CONSERVACIN DE RGANOS EN PACIENTES CON CNCER DE RECTO TRATADOS CON TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE TOTAL

ANTECEDENTES:Estudios retrospectivos sugieren que observar y esperar es una alternativa segura a la escisión mesorrectal total en pacientes seleccionados con una respuesta clínica completa después de la quimiorradioterapia.OBJETIVO:Determinar la proporción de pacientes con cáncer de recto que pueden beneficiarse de observar y esperar.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de datos de bases de datos mantenidas de forma prospectiva.ESCENARIO:Centro Oncológico Integral.PACIENTES:Pacientes consecutivos con adenocarcinoma de recto en estadio II o III tratados con TNT utilizando quimioterapia de inducción entre 2012 y 2019 bajo el cuidado del mismo cirujano.INTERVENCIÓN:La terapia neoadyuvante total de tipo inducción consistió en ocho ciclos de leucovorín-fluorouracilo-oxaliplatino o cinco ciclos de capecitabina-oxaliplatino antes de la quimiorradioterapia. A los pacientes con una respuesta clínica completa se les ofreció observar y esperar, y a los pacientes con tumor residual se les ofreció la escisión mesorrectal total.PRINCIPALES RESULTADOS Y MEDIDAS:La respuesta del tumor se evaluó con un tacto rectal, endoscopia y resonancia magnética. Se compararon las características de los pacientes y la supervivencia libre de recurrencia entre el grupo de observación y espera y el grupo de escisión mesorrectal total.RESULTADOS:Se incluyó en el análisis a un total de 88 pacientes. Uno (1%) murió durante la terapia neoadyuvante. Cincuenta y cinco pacientes (62.5%) tuvieron una respuesta clínica incompleta y se sometieron a cirugía; 10 (18%) de los 55 desarrollaron metástasis a distancia y 3 (5%) desarrollaron recidiva local. Los 32 pacientes restantes (36.3%) tuvieron una cCR (respuesta clínica completa) y se sometieron a observar y esperar. En promedio, los pacientes del grupo de observación y espera eran mayores y tenían tumores más pequeños y distales en comparación con el grupo de cirugía. La dosis mediana de radiación, el número de ciclos de quimioterapia, la tasa de eventos adversos y la duración del seguimiento no difirieron sustancialmente entre el grupo de escisión mesorrectal total y el grupo de observación y espera. En el grupo de observación y espera, 2 (6%) pacientes desarrollaron recrecimiento del tumor y uno de ellos tuvo metástasis a distancia. La supervivencia libre de recurrencia fue significativamente mayor en el grupo de observación y espera.LIMITACIONES:Generalizabilidad, tamaño de la muestra, duración del seguimiento.CONCLUSIONES:Aproximadamente un tercio de los pacientes con cáncer de recto en estadio II o III pueden beneficiarse de un abordaje de observación y espera con el objetivo de preservar el recto si se tratan con terapia neoadyuvante total de tipo inducción y son seguidos por un equipo multidisciplinario experimentado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B688.

A nomogram to predict risk factors of frequent defecation early after ileostomy reversal for rectal cancer patients

Background

Defecation disorders after ileostomy reversal are among the most common complications for rectal cancer patients, and significantly diminish their quality of life. The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors associated with frequent defecation early after ileostomy reversal for rectal cancer patients.

Methods

We retrospectively collected the data of rectal cancer patients who underwent ileostomy reversal from January 2018 to December 2019 at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University. We divided patients into two groups: a no frequent defecation group (≤7 times/day) and a frequent defecation group (>7 times/day).

Results

Of the 264 included patients, 59 patients (22.35%) had frequent defecation within 1 month after ileostomy closure and were defined as the frequent defecation group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of gender, age, hypertension, and diabetes. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that proctitis (P=0.04) and anastomotic stenosis (P=0.02) were independent risk factors for frequent defecation. Four factors, including proctitis, anastomotic stenosis, hypertension, and age were included to construct the nomogram. The consistency index of the nomogram was 0.949 and the area under the curve value was 0.623.

Conclusions

For rectal cancer patients, proctitis and anastomotic stenosis were correlated with frequent defecation within 1 month after ileostomy closure. Surgeons should pay attention to the rectal examination before ileostomy reversal surgery.

Anus-Preserving Surgery in Advanced Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: A Perspective on Oncological Safety of Intersphincteric Resection

The surgical management of low-lying rectal cancer, within 5 cm from the anal verge (AV), is challenging due to the possibility, or not, to preserve the anus with its sphincter muscles maintaining oncological safety. The standardization of total mesorectal excision, the adoption of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the implementation of rectal magnetic resonance imaging, and the evolution of mechanical staplers have increased the rate of anus-preserving surgeries. Moreover, extensive anatomy and physiology studies have increased the understanding of the complexity of the deep pelvis. Intersphincteric resection (ISR) was introduced nearly three decades ago as the ultimate anus-preserving surgery. The definition and indication of ISR have changed over time. The adoption of the robotic platform provides excellent perioperative results with no differences in oncological outcomes. Pushing the boundaries of anus-preserving surgeries has risen doubts on oncological safety in order to preserve function. This review critically discusses the oncological safety of ISR by evaluating the anatomical characteristics of the deep pelvis, the clinical indications, the role of distal and circumferential resection margins, the role of the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the outcomes between surgical approaches (open, laparoscopic, and robotic), the comparison with abdominoperineal resection, the risk factors for oncological outcomes and local recurrence, the patterns of local recurrences after ISR, considerations on functional outcomes after ISR, and learning curve and surgical education on ISR.

Permanent stoma rates after anterior resection for rectal cancer: risk prediction scoring using preoperative variables

BACKGROUND

A permanent stoma after anterior resection for rectal cancer is common. Preoperative counselling could be improved by providing individualized accurate prediction modelling.

METHODS

Patients who underwent anterior resection between 2007 and 2015 were identified from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. National Patient Registry data were added to determine presence of a stoma 2 years after surgery. A training set based on the years 2007-2013 was employed in an ensemble of prediction models. Judged by the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUROC), data from the years 2014-2015 were used to evaluate the predictive ability of all models. The best performing model was subsequently implemented in typical clinical scenarios and in an online calculator to predict the permanent stoma risk.

RESULTS

Patients in the training set (n = 3512) and the test set (n = 1136) had similar permanent stoma rates (13.6 and 15.2 per cent). The logistic regression model with a forward/backward procedure was the most parsimonious among several similarly performing models (AUROC 0.67, 95 per cent c.i. 0.63 to 0.72). Key predictors included co-morbidity, local tumour category, presence of metastasis, neoadjuvant therapy, defunctioning stoma use, tumour height, and hospital volume; the interaction between age and metastasis was also predictive.

CONCLUSION

Using routinely available preoperative data, the stoma outcome at 2 years after anterior resection for rectal cancer can be predicted fairly accurately.

Short stump and high anastomosis pull-through (SHiP) procedure for delayed coloanal anastomosis with no protective stoma for low rectal cancer

Despite advances in coloanal anastomosis techniques, satisfactory procedures completed without complications remain lacking. We investigated the effectiveness of our recently developed ‘Short stump and High anastomosis Pull-through’ (SHiP) procedure for delayed coloanal anastomosis without a stoma. In this retrospective study, we analysed functional outcomes, morbidity, and mortality rates and local recurrence of 37 patients treated using SHiP procedure, out of the 282 patients affected by rectal cancer treated in our institution between 2012 and 2020. The inclusion criterion was that the rectal cancer be located within 4 cm from the anal margin. One patient died of local and pulmonary recurrence after 6 years, one developed lung and liver metastases after 2 years, and one experienced local recurrence 2.5 years after surgery. No major leak, retraction, or ischaemia of the colonic stump occurred; the perioperative mortality rate was zero. Five patients (13.51%) had early complications. Stenosis of the anastomosis, which occurred in nine patients (24.3%), was the only long-term complication; only three (8.1%) were symptomatic and were treated with endoscopic dilation. The mean Wexner scores at 24 and 36 months were 8.3 and 8.1 points, respectively. At the 36-month check-up, six patients (24%) had major LARS, ten (40%) had minor LARS, and nine (36%) had no LARS. The functional results in terms of LARS were similar to those previously reported after immediate coloanal anastomosis with protective stoma. The SHiP procedure resulted in a drastic reduction in major complications, and none of the patients had a stoma.

A nomogram to predict the incidence of permanent stoma in elderly patients with rectal cancer

Background

Creation of a temporary diverting stoma during rectal cancer surgery is used widely to prevent undesirable outcomes related to anastomotic leakage (AL). The transition from temporary stoma (TS) to permanent stoma (PS) is a frequent outcome. Elderly patients may have a greater probability of PS. We aimed to identify risk factors of PS and developed a nomogram to predict the rate of PS for elderly patients.

Methods

We enrolled elderly patients (≥70 years) who underwent rectal cancer surgery with a TS between January 2014 and December 2017 at our hospital. We divided patients into two groups: a TS group and a PS group. We then identified the risk factors for PS and developed a nomogram to predict the possibility of PS.

Results

Of the 278 elderly patients who received a diverting stoma, 220 (79.14%) eventually underwent stoma reversal, and 58 (20.86%) had PS. The proportion of males in the PS group was significantly higher than that of the TS group (P=0.048). Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (P<0.001), laparotomy (P=0.004), AL (P<0.001), and tumor recurrence (P<0.001) were significantly correlated with PS. These four factors were included to construct the nomogram. The consistency index of the nomogram was 0.833 and the model yielded an area under the curve of 0.833.

Conclusions

ASA score (≥3), laparotomy, AL, and tumor recurrence were independent risk factors for PS in elderly patients. Our nomogram exhibited moderate predictive ability.

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.

What is the risk of permanent stoma beyond 5 years after low anterior resection for rectal cancer? A 15-year follow-up of a randomized trial

AIM

Low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer (LAR) entails a risk of symptomatic anastomotic leakage as well as impaired anorectal function, both of which may eventually result in the need for a permanent stoma (PS). The aim was to investigate the incidence of and risk factors for PS beyond 5 years following LAR.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LAR and included in a multicentre trial with randomization to defunctioning stoma or not were followed for a median of 15 years. The reasons for a PS up to 5 years (PS ≤ 5 years) and beyond 5 years (PS > 5 years) were identified and compared. Risk factors for PS were analysed.

RESULTS

Of all patients, 25% (57/232) had a PS. PS ≤ 5 years occurred in 19% (44/232) at a median of 12.5 months and PS > 5 years in 6% (13/232) at a median of 118 months following LAR. The main reason for PS ≤ 5 years was impaired anorectal function in 55% (24/44) and the main reason for PS > 5 years was pelvic sepsis related to the colorectal anastomosis in 46% (6/13). The major risk factor for PS was symptomatic anastomotic leakage, which occurred in 56% (32/57) of patients with PS and 10% (17/175) of patients without PS (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

One-fourth of the patients who ended up with a PS had it fashioned beyond 5 years at a median of 10 years following LAR. Symptomatic anastomotic leakage was the major risk factor for PS, and impaired anorectal function was the main overall reason for a PS.

Nonoperative Management for T2 Low Rectal Cancer: A Western Approach

The possibility of organ preservation in early rectal cancer has gained popularity during recent years. Patients with early tumor stage and low risk for local recurrence do not usually require neoadjuvant chemoradiation for oncological reasons. However, these patients may be considered for chemoradiation exclusively for the purpose of achieving a complete clinical response and avoid total mesorectal excision. In addition, cT2 tumors may be more likely to develop complete response to neoadjuvant therapy and may constitute ideal candidates for organ-preserving strategies. In the setting where the use of chemoradiation is exclusively used to avoid major surgery, one should consider maximizing tumor response. In this article, we will focus on the rationale, indications, and outcomes of patients with early rectal cancer being treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation to achieve organ preservation by avoiding total mesorectal excision.

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.

Two-Stage Turnbull-Cutait Pull-Through Coloanal Anastomosis for Low Rectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Two-stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis seems to provide benefits in terms of postoperative morbidity compared with standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis associated with diverting ileostomy and further ileostomy reversal in patients operated on for low rectal cancer.

Objective

To compare 30-day postoperative and 1-year follow-up results of Turnbull-Cutait pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis and standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis after ultralow rectal resection for rectal cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Multicenter randomized clinical trial. Neither patients nor surgeons were blinded for technique. Patients were recruited in 3 centers, Bellvitge University Hospital and Valle d'Hebron University Hospital in Spain and Instituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G. Pascale-Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico in Italy. Patients undergoing ultralow anterior rectal resection needing hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis were randomly assigned to 2-stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis or standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis associated with diverting ileostomy. Data were analyzed between June 2012 and October 2018.

Interventions

All patients underwent ultralow anterior resection. Patients assigned to the 2-stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through group underwent exteriorization of a segment of left colon through the anal canal and, after 6 to 10 days, the exteriorized colon was resected and a delayed hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis was performed. For patients assigned to standard coloanal anastomosis, the hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis was performed with diverting ileostomy at first operation. Closure of the ileostomy was planned after 6 to 8 months.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcome was 30-day postoperative morbidity. For the standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis with diverting ileostomy group, overall postoperative morbidity includes 30-day postoperative complications of the ileostomy closure.

Results

Ninety-two white patients, 72 men and 20 women, with a median age of 62 years, were randomized and included in the analysis. Forty-six patients received standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis with diverting ileostomy and 46 received the 2-stage pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis. Seven patients (15.2%) in the standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis group did not undergo reversal ileostomy, and 1 patient (2.2%) in the 2-stage pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis group did not undergo delayed coloanal anastomosis. The 30-day overall composite postoperative complications rate was similar between the 2 groups (34.8% in 2-stage pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis group vs 45.7% in standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis group; P = .40), with a difference of -10.9 (95% CI, -29.5 to 8.9).

Conclusions and Relevance

The 2-stage pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis after ultralow anterior resection for low rectal cancer is safe and does not increase the postoperative morbidity rate compared with standard coloanal anastomosis with covering ileostomy followed by ileostomy closure.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01766661.

Assessment of the risk of permanent stoma after low anterior resection in rectal cancer patients

Background

One of the most severe complications of low anterior rectal resection is anastomotic leakage (AL). The creation of a loop ileostomy (LI) reduces the prevalence of AL requiring surgical intervention. However, up to one-third of temporary stomas may never be closed.

The first aim of the study was to perform a retrospective assessment of the impact of LI on the risk of permanent stoma (PS) and symptomatic AL. The second aim of the study was to assess preoperative PS risk factors in patients with LI.

Methods

A total of 286 consecutive patients who underwent low anterior rectal resection were subjected to retrospective analysis. In 101 (35.3%) patients, diverting LI was performed due to low anastomosis, while in the remaining 185 (64.7%) patients, no ileostomy was performed. LIs were reversed after adjuvant treatment. Analyses of the effect of LI on symptomatic AL and PS were performed. Among the potential risk factors for PS, clinical factors and the values of selected peripheral blood parameters were analysed.

Results

PS occurred in 37.6% and 21.1% of the patients with LI and without LI, respectively (p < 0.01). Symptomatic ALs were significantly more common in patients without LI. In this group, symptomatic ALs occurred in 23.8% of patients, while in the LI group, they occurred in 5% of patients (p < 0.001). In the LI group, the only significant risk factor for PS in the multivariate analysis was preoperative plasma fibrinogen concentration (OR = 1.007, 97.5% CI 1.002–1.013, p = 0.013).

Conclusions

Although protective LI may reduce the incidence of symptomatic AL, it can be related to a higher risk of PS in this group of patients. The preoperative plasma fibrinogen concentration can be a risk factor for PS in LI patients and may be a useful variable in decision-making models.

Risk factors for parastomal hernia of loop stoma and relationships with other stoma complications in laparoscopic surgery era

Background

Laparoscopic approach is now a widespread technique used worldwide, but there are few recent studies on risk factors for parastomal hernia. Therefore, this study was performed to analyze the incidence of parastomal hernia in laparoscopic and open surgery in which a loop stoma was created and was intended to be temporary, and to determine risk factors for parastomal hernia formation. Associations between parastomal hernia and other stoma-related complications were also analyzed.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patient and surgical characteristics was performed in 153 consecutive patients who underwent a temporary diverting loop ileostomy or colostomy after surgery related to malignant diseases at our hospital from January to December 2016.

Results

Parastomal hernia developed in 77 cases (50.3%), including 39 (25.5%) diagnosed by physical examination and 38 (24.8%) detected by CT alone. On multivariate analysis, a stoma not passing through the middle of the rectus abdominis muscle was the only independent risk factor for parastomal hernia formation (p = 0.005) during the median follow-up of 245.0 days. When we analyzed the factors that were associated with a stoma not passing through the middle of the rectus abdominis muscle, the only independent factor associated with this misplacement of the stoma was a laparoscopic approach (p = 0.012). An analysis of stoma-related complications showed that peristomal skin disorders were significantly associated with parastomal hernia (p = 0.049).

Conclusions

This study showed that a stoma that is not formed through the middle of the rectus abdominis muscle is a risk factor for parastomal hernia formation, and that a laparoscopic approach is associated with this risk factor. Moreover, parastomal hernia is significantly associated with peristomal skin disorders.

Predictors of permanent stoma creation in patients with mid or low rectal cancer: results of a multicentre cohort study with preoperative evaluation of anal function

AIM

Preoperative factors predictive of permanent stoma creation were investigated in a long-term follow-up of patients with mid or low rectal cancer.

METHOD

We included patients who underwent radical resection for mid or low rectal cancer with available data for preoperative anal function measured by manometry and Faecal Incontinence Severity Index questionnaire between January 2005 and December 2015 in three tertiary referral hospitals. A permanent stoma was defined as a stoma present until the patient's last follow-up visit or death. Preoperative factors that predicted permanent stoma creation were analysed.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up of 57.4 months (range 12-143 months), a permanent stoma was created in 144/577 (25.0%) patients, including 89 (15.4%) who underwent abdominoperineal resection, one (0.2%) who underwent Hartmann's operation without reversal, 15 (2.6%) with a diverting ileostomy at the time of initial sphincter-preserving surgery without undergoing stoma reversal, and 39 (6.8%) who underwent permanent ileostomy formation after sphincter-preserving surgery. Patients with permanent stoma creation had a shorter tumour distance from the anal verge (P < 0.001), larger tumour size (P = 0.020) and higher preoperative Faecal Incontinence Severity Index score (P = 0.020). On multivariable analysis, tumour distance from the anal verge predicted permanent stoma formation (relative risk 0.53 per centimetre increase; 95% confidence interval 0.46-0.60; P < 0.001) but preoperative anal function did not.

CONCLUSION

Tumour distance from the anal verge was the only preoperative determinant of permanent stoma creation in rectal cancer patients. These data may help mid and low rectal cancer patients understand the need for permanent stoma.

Ultimate Functional Preservation With Intersphincteric Resection for Rectal Cancer

The proximity of the very low rectum rectal cancer to the anal sphincter raises a specific problem: how and until when can we preserve the anal continence without compromising the oncological result of the tumor resection? In this situation, intersphincteric resection (ISR) offers an excellent alternative to abdominoperineal resection (APR), but the selection of patients for this option must be extremely precise. This complex choice justifies the simultaneous consideration of an oncological approach with a functional approach in order to provide a full benefit to the patient. When a circumferential resection margin of at least 1 mm can be performed with a distal resection margin of at least 1 cm with or without preoperative radiotherapy, ISR ensures a safety choice. The oncological results of ISR reported in the literature when performed properly found a 5-year disease-free survival of 80.2% with a local recurrence rate of only 5.8%. In parallel to this oncological evaluation, the expected post-operative functional outcome and the resulting quality of life must be properly assessed pre-operatively, since partial or total resection of the internal sphincter impacts significantly on the functional outcome. Based on data from the literature, this work reports the essential anatomical considerations and then the oncological and functional elements indispensables when an anal continence preservation is evoked for a tumor of the very low rectum. Finally, the precise selection criteria and the major surgical principles are outlined in order to guarantee the safety of this modern choice for the patient.

Intraluminal flexible sheath for the protection of low anastomosis after anterior resection: results from a First-In-Human trial on 15 patients

BACKGROUND

Defunctioning ostomy is commonly used to protect patients from anastomotic leakage complications after low anterior resection, but is fraught with its own deleterious effects. This first-in-human study examines the safety and preliminary efficacy of Colovac, an anastomosis protection device. The Colovac consists of a flexible bypass sheath, placed in the lumen of colon and anchored above the anastomosis using a vacuum stent.

METHODS

15 patients underwent anterior resection (AR) with anastomosis protection by Colovac at 3 European centers. After 14 days, the anastomosis integrity was examined by CT scan and endoscopy. The device was then endoscopically removed. Data regarding demographics, surgical details, 30 day post-operative complications, and patient satisfaction were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

15 patients (10 male) underwent laparoscopic AR with Colovac placement. Preoperative neoadjuvant therapy was administered to 54% of patients. Device placement was uneventful in all patients with a median duration of 7 min and placement was judged as easy or very easy in 93% of the cases. Patients did not report major discomfort during the 14 days. Endoscopic removal (10 min) was judged as easy or very easy in 87% of the cases. Absence of feces below the Colovac anchoring site was observed in 100% of the cases. 4 anastomotic leakages were observed (including 3 device migrations). Overall 5 patients (33%) required a planned stoma creation. At 3 months, 1 had already been closed.

CONCLUSION

Colovac provides a minimally invasive protection of the anastomosis during the healing process by avoiding the need for a diverting ostomy for two-thirds of patients who will not experience anastomotic complications and allowing safe conversion to the standard of care for patients requiring extended anastomotic protection. A larger study is ongoing to confirm these results.

Investigating Risk Factors for Complications after Ileostomy Reversal in Low Anterior Rectal Resection Patients: An Observational Study

Introduction: Defunctioning ileostomy has been widely used in patients undergoing low anterior rectal resection to reduce the rate of postoperative leakage. It is still not clear whether interval between primary procedure and ileostomy reversal has an impact on treatment outcomes. Methods: In our prospective observational study we reviewed 164 consecutive cases of patients who underwent total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis. Univariate and multivariate regression models were used to search for risk factors for prolonged length of stay and complications after defunctioning ileostomy reversal. Receiver operating characteristic curves were utilized to set cut-off points for prolonged length of stay and perioperative morbidity. Results: In total, 132 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The median interval between primary procedure and defunctioning ileostomy reversal was 134 (range: 17-754) days, while median length of stay was 5 days (4-6 interquartile range (IQR)). Prolonged length of stay cut-off was established at 6 days. Regression models revealed that interval between primary surgery and stoma closure as well as complications after primary procedure are risk factors for complications after defunctioning ileostomy reversal. Prolonged length of stay has been found to be related primarily to interval between primary surgery and stoma closure. Conclusions: In our study interval between primary surgery and stoma closure along with complication occurrence after primary procedure are risk factors for perioperative morbidity and prolonged length of stay (LOS) after ileostomy reversal. The effort should be made to minimize the interval to ileostomy reversal. However, randomized studies are necessary to avoid the bias which appears in this observational study and confirm our findings.

Reversal of defunctioning stoma following rectal cancer surgery: are we getting better? A population-based single centre experience

BACKGROUND

The aim was to assess factors influencing the timing of defunctioning stoma (DS) reversal following low anterior resection of rectum for cancer (LAR).

METHODS

All patients operated with LAR and a primary DS during a 9-year period were included. Reversal later than 120 days after LAR was considered as delayed. A DS not reversed within 2 years was considered as permanent.

RESULTS

In the present study, median age at LAR was 67 years, 45% were females, median body mass index was 25, 87% had American Society of Anesthesiologists class I or II, 64% had pre-operative radiotherapy, and 3% had cancer stage IV. A total of 79% (92/116) underwent stoma reversal, whereof 25% (23/92) were reversed within 120 days. The most common health-related reasons for delayed stoma reversal were adjuvant chemotherapy in 38%, symptomatic anastomotic leakage in 16% and other post-operative adverse events in 13%. In 35% delayed stoma reversal was because of low priority within the healthcare system. A total of 18% (20/110) never had their DS reversed (n = 11) or had their DS converted to a permanent end colostomy (n = 9). Major risk factors for permanent stoma were stage IV cancer in 55%, and symptomatic anastomotic leakage in 30%.

CONCLUSION

One fourth of the patients had their defunctioning stoma reversed within 120 days. The most common identifiable medical reasons for delayed stoma reversal were adjuvant chemotherapy and symptomatic anastomotic leakage, while in one out of three patients it was because of low priority by the healthcare provider.

A quest for sphincter-saving surgery in ultralow rectal tumours-a single-centre cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Despite the progress in the treatment of colorectal cancer, there is still no optimal strategy for tumours located adjacent to the anal sphincter. This study aims to evaluate oncological and functional results of surgery for rectal cancer in unfavourable locations in proximity to anal sphincters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer, which was either initially infiltrating the anal sphincter or located in the close proximity of the sphincter, were included in the study. Patients were submitted to extralevator abdominoperineal resection (APR), intersphincteric resection, or transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Primary outcomes were perioperative data: operative time, blood loss, complications, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were pathological quality of the specimens and functional outcome 6 months after defunctioning ileostomy closure.

RESULTS

Among patients with cancer adjacent to the anal sphincter, 13 (25%) underwent APR, 14 (27%) patients were submitted to intersphincteric resection, and 25 (48%) patients were treated with the TaTME approach. Operative time was 240 (210-270 IQR) for APR, 212.5 (170-260 IQR) for intersphincteric resection, and 270 (240-330 IQR) for TaTME (p = 0.018). Perioperative morbidity was 31% for APR, 36% for intersphincteric resections, and 12% for the TaTME group (p = 0.181). Complete mesorectal excision was achieved in 92% of specimens in the TaTME group, 93% in intersphincteric resections, and 78% in the APR group (p = 0.72). Median circumferential resection margin in APR was 6 mm (4-7 IQR), in intersphincteric resections 7.5 mm (2.5-10 IQR), and in the TaTME group 4 mm (2.8-8 IQR). All patients after intersphincteric resections developed major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Four patients in the TaTME group developed minor LARS, and 21 had major LARS.

CONCLUSION

Sphincter-saving rectal resections are a feasible alternative to APR with good clinical, pathological, and oncological outcomes. Intersphincteric resections and TaTME seem to be equal in terms of clinicopathological results. The functional outcome is yet to be investigated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was retrospectively registered in Thai Clinical Trials Registry (23-07-2018, ID TCTR20180724001 ).

[Influence of anastomotic leakage on the long-term outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer]

Anastomotic leakage after surgery for colorectal cancer is a widely known factor aggravating immediate outcomes. At the same time, deterioration of oncological results is under much less attention. Long-term consequences of anastomotic leakage and possible mechanism of negative effect of this complication on long-term results are reviewed in the article.

Anterior resection syndrome: What should we tell practitioners and patients in 2018?

Multidisciplinary management of infra-peritoneal rectal cancer has pushed back the frontiers of sphincter preservation, without impairment of carcinological outcome. However, functional intestinal sequelae, grouping together several symptoms known under the name of anterior resection syndrome (ARS), have emerged and become an increasingly frequent concern for both patients and physicians. The pathophysiology is complex: ARS is a combination in various degrees of stool frequency, incontinence for flatus and/or stools, urgency, and disorders in discrimination and evacuation. The "Low Anterior Resection Score" (LARS), validated in 2012, is currently used to evaluate the severity of ARS and its impact on quality of life. While ARS can show improvement over the first two years, symptoms persist for longer than two years in nearly 60% of patients and in half of these patients, ARS is considered severe. The most frequently reported independent risk factors of severe ARS include neo-adjuvant radiation therapy, the extent of resection (total mesorectal excision that includes inter-sphincteric resection), absence of colonic pouch and anastomotic leak. In the absence of surgical complications and/or local recurrence, physicians can draw from a wide therapeutic armamentarium in order to improve the functional outcome of patients, including diet and lifestyle modifications, gut motility regulators, multimodal rehabilitation (biofeedback, electro-stimulation) and sacral nerve modulation. Permanent colostomy is an alternative of last resort, proposed only when all other solutions fail. A better understanding of the natural history of ARS, its risk factors as well as the array of therapeutic alternatives should provide better patient information and optimize management.

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

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision and preoperative radiotherapy in mid and low rectal cancer allow us to achieve very good oncological results. However, major and refractory low anterior resection syndrome and fecal incontinence alter the quality of life of patients with a long expected life span.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the functional results of patients treated by antegrade enema for refractory low anterior resection syndrome and fecal incontinence after total mesorectal excision.

DESIGN

This is a prospective monocentric study from 2012 to 2016.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy for refractory low anterior resection syndrome and fecal incontinence after total mesorectal excision were prospectively analyzed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We assessed the morbidity of the procedure and compared low anterior resection syndrome score, Wexner score, and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index before and after the use of antegrade enema.

RESULTS

Of 25 patients treated by antegrade enema over the study period, 6 (24%) had a low anterior resection, 18 (72%) had a coloanal anastomosis, and 1 (4%) had a perineal colostomy. Postoperatively, the rate of local abscess was 8%, all treated by antibiotics. Low anterior resection syndrome score (33 vs 4, p < 0.001), Wexner score (16 vs 4, p <0.001), and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (73 vs 104, p < 0.001) were all significantly improved after antegrade enema. The 2 main symptoms reported by patients were sweating (28%) and local pain (36%). At the end of the follow-up, 16% (n = 4) catheters were removed, and the rate of definitive colostomy was 12% (n = 3).

LIMITATIONS

The main limitations of this study are the monocentric features and the sample size.

CONCLUSION

Antegrade enema for major and refractory low anterior resection syndrome and fecal incontinence after total mesorectal excision appears to be a promising treatment to avoid definitive colostomy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A608.

Extent of unnecessary surgery for benign rectal polyps in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Minimally invasive techniques are available to safely and efficaciously remove even the largest rectal polyps. This study aimed to investigate the magnitude of cases still referred for radical rectal surgery and the reasons for these referrals and to perform a re-evaluation of cases potentially suitable for endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data from the Dutch Pathology Registry (Pathologic Anatomic Nationwide Automated Archive) was performed using the records of patients who underwent major surgical treatment for a histologically proven benign rectal polyp between 2005 and 2014 in the Netherlands. In a representative subset of 7 hospitals, detailed analysis was performed. An expert panel of 3 endoscopists reassessed all patient data to judge whether endoscopic treatment would have been a reasonable alternative.

RESULTS

In the last decade 575 patients, and 56 patients in the subset of hospitals, were referred for major rectal surgery for a benign rectal polyp in the Netherlands. The number of radical resections declined over the years but stabilized in the last years. The main reasons for surgery were polyp size (34%), suspicion of malignancy (34%), and transanal endoscopic microsurgery failures (20%). In community hospitals, referrals for surgery were relatively more prevalent compared with academic hospitals (P < .01). Thirty-nine percent of patients had perioperative adverse events, and 1 patient (1.8%) died. Seventy-three percent of cases were assessed as "probably feasible" for endoscopic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the last 10 years the rate of radical rectal surgery for a benign polyp declined. However, a significant subgroup of patients was still referred for invasive surgery at the cost of high morbidity and mortality. Referral to an expert endoscopist may avoid unnecessary surgery in most cases.

Intersphincteric Resection Pushing the Envelope for Sphincter Preservation

During the last 15 years, a significant evolution has emerged in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer and restoration of bowel continuity has been one of the main goals. For many years the treatment of distal rectal cancer would necessarily require an abdominoperineal resection and end colostomy. The surgical procedure of intersphincteric resection has been proposed to offer sphincter preservation in patients with low rectal cancer and has been legitimized if executed according to adequate oncologic criteria. This article will discuss the best indications, technical aspects, functional, and oncological outcomes of intersphicteric resection in the management of rectal cancer.

Functional outcomes after intersphincteric resection for ultralow rectal cancer

Anal function is one of the most important parameters for evaluating the efficacy of intersphincteric resection (ISR) for the treatment of ultralow rectal cancer (< 1 cm from the anal sphincter). Although there have been no results hitherto from randomized controlled trials to verify the clinical benefits of the ultimate sphincter-sparing technique, increasing evidence demonstrates that ISR significantly decreases the rate of permanent stoma and patients could acquire satisfied functional results after surgery. This review discusses the short-term and long-term functional outcomes, risk factors for anal incontinence, and surgical method and approach of ISR.

Prophylactic pelvic drainage after rectal resection with extraperitoneal anastomosis: is it worthwhile? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The role of prophylactic pelvic drainage in reducing the postoperative complication rate after rectal surgery remains unclear and controversial.

OBJECTIVE

This review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials was performed to determine whether drainage of the extraperitoneal anastomosis after rectal surgery impacts the postoperative complication rate.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Study eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing prophylactic pelvic drainage after rectal surgery.

METHODS

The Medline and Cochrane Trials Register databases were searched for prospective randomized controlled trials comparing drainage versus no drainage after rectal surgery. Studies published until December 2016 were included. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials involving 660 patients with extraperitoneal anastomosis after rectal surgery (330 with and 330 without prophylactic pelvic drains) were included. The overall mortality rate was 0.7% (2/267) in the drain group and 1.9% (5/261) in the no-drain group (P = 0.900). The anastomotic leakage rate was 14.8% (49/330) in the drain group and 16.7% (55/330) in the no-drain group (P = 0.370). The postoperative small bowel obstruction rate was significantly higher in the drain than no-drain group (50/267, 18.7% vs. 33/261, 12.6%; odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-2.60; P = 0.050).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic use of pelvic drainage after extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis has no impact on the incidence of anastomotic leakage or postoperative death. However, it significantly increases the rate of postoperative small bowel obstruction.