Defunctioning ileostomy and mechanical bowel preparation may contribute to development of low anterior resection syndrome

Incidence and Risk Factors for Low Anterior Resection Syndrome following Trans-Anal Total Mesorectal Excision

BACKGROUND

Trans-anal total mesorectal excision (Ta-TME) is a novel approach for the resection of rectal cancer. Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is a frequent functional disorder that might follow restorative proctectomy. Data regarding bowel function after Ta-TME are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for the development of LARS following Ta-TME.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of all patients who underwent Ta-TME for rectal cancer at our institution was reviewed. All patients who were operated on from January 2018 to December 2021 were evaluated. The LARS score questionnaire was used via telephone interviews. Incidence, severity and risk factors for LARS were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients underwent Ta-TME for rectal cancer between January 2018 and December 2021. Thirty-five patients were excluded due to ostomy status, death, local disease recurrence, ileal pouch or lack of compliance. Fifty patients were included in the analysis. LARS was diagnosed in 76% of patients. Anastomosis distance from dentate line was identified as a risk factor for LARS via multivariate analysis (p = 0.042). Neo-adjuvant therapy, hand sewn anastomosis and anastomotic leak did not increase the risk of LARS.

CONCLUSION

LARS is a frequent condition following ta-TME, as it is used for other approaches to low anterior resection. Anastomosis distance from dentate line is an independent risk factor for LARS. In this study neo-adjuvant therapy, hand sewn anastomosis and anastomotic leak did not increase the risk of LARS. Further studies with longer follow-up times are required to better understand the functional outcomes following Ta-TME.

Low anterior resection syndrome: can it be prevented?

Surgery remains the cardinal treatment in colorectal cancers but changes in bowel habits after rectal cancer surgery are common and disabling conditions that affect patients' quality of life. Low anterior resection syndrome is a disorder of bowel function after rectal resection resulting in a lowering of the QoL and recently has been defined by an international working group not only by specified symptoms but also by their consequences. This review aims to explore an extensive bibliographic research on preventive strategies for LARS. All "modifiable variables," quantified by the LARS Score, such as type of anastomosis, neoadjuvant therapy, surgical strategy, and diverting stoma, were evaluated, while "non-modifiable variables" such as age, sex, BMI, ASA, preoperative TMN, tumor height, and type of mesorectal excision were excluded from the comparative analysis. The role of defunctioning stoma, local excision, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and non operative management seems to significantly affect risk of LARS, while type of anastomosis and surgical TME approach do not impact on LARS incidence or gravity in the long term period. Although it is established that some variables are associated with a greater onset of LARS, in clinical practice, technical difficulties and oncological limits often make difficult the application of some prevention plans. Transtomal irrigations, intraoperative neuromonitoring, pelvic floor rehabilitation before stoma closure, and early transanal irrigation represent new arguments of study in preventive strategies which could, if not eliminate the symptoms, at least mitigate them.

Risk factors for major low anterior resection syndrome: meta-analysis and systematic literature review

Introduction — Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is a socially significant problem that impedes social adaptation and contributes to deterioration of life quality in patients. The objective of this study was to search for the category of patients most prone to major LARS, as well as to identify the factors determining the severity of this syndrome manifestations. Material and Methods — Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The study selected publications that included the functional results of treatment of patients operated for rectal cancer. Functional impairments were assessed according to the international LARS Score. Statistical analysis was performed using the inverse-variance weighted average method (IVW) with calculation of the odds ratio logarithm and standard error of the mean. Results — After a critical search and analysis of all literature sources, eight studies were found suitable for meta-analysis. In total, 1042 patients (796 men and 246 women) were included into statistical analysis, 409 of which (39.2%) had symptoms of major LARS. Chemotherapy was performed on 637 (62.5%) patients, while 568 subjects (55.5%) underwent radiation therapy, and anastomotic leaks were described in 89 (8.5%) people. According to the results of the meta-analysis, statistically significant factors were: preventative ostomy (OR=3.32, 95% CI 1.99-5.55, p<0.00001), chemotherapy (OR=1.98, 95% CI 1.23-3, 19, p=0.005), radiation therapy (OR=5.00, 95% CI 2.73-9.13, p <0.00001), anastomotic leaks (OR=2.93, 95% CI 2.30-3, 73, p<0.00001), anal verge distance from anastomosis site (OR=2.61, 95% CI 1.47-4.62, p=0.001). Conclusion — The results of our meta-analysis allowed us identifying the group of rectal cancer patients most vulnerable to LARS. The risk of developing severe functional disorders is significantly higher in patients with low colorectal anastomosis, as well as in patients undergoing neoadjuvant radiation therapy.

Diverting Stoma Versus No Diversion in Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection: A Single-center Retrospective Study in Japan

BACKGROUND/AIM

The purpose of this retrospective study was to describe the benefits and risks of a diverting stoma (DS) in laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 140 and 167 patients without and with DS, respectively, were included in this study in a high-volume cancer center of Japan within an 8-year period.

RESULTS

Small bowel obstruction occurred more frequently in patients with DS (2.86% vs. 16.17%, p<0.001). The difference in anastomotic leakage rate was not statistically significant (11.43% vs. 10.18%, p=0.72). In multivariate analysis, the operating time was associated with a higher rate of leakage in LAR [odds ratio (OR) 8.772, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.002-1.012, p=0.027].

CONCLUSION

Operating time was associated with a higher rate of leakage in LAR for low rectal cancer. A DS did not reduce anastomotic leakage but increased the risk of postoperative intestinal obstruction in laparoscopic LAR.

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.

Functional outcomes after resections for low rectal tumors: comparison of Transanal with laparoscopic Total Mesorectal excision

Background

Aim of this study was to evaluate functional outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) in comparison to conventional laparoscopic approach (LaTME) in terms of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS).

Methods

Forty-six patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer between 2013 and 2017 were enrolled. Primary outcome was the severity of faecal incontinence, assessed both before the treatment and 6 months after ileostomy reversal. LARS score and Jorge-Wexner scale were utilized to analyze its severity.

Results

Twenty (87%) from TaTME and 21 (91%) from LaTME group developed LARS postoperatively. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of LARS occurrence (p = 0.63) and severity. The median Wexner score was comparable in both groups (8 [IQR: 4–12] vs 7 [3–11], p = 0.83). Univariate analysis revealed that postoperative complications were a risk factor for LARS development (p = 0.02). Perioperative outcomes, including operative time, blood loss and intraoperative adverse events did not differ significantly between groups either. Five TaTME patients developed postoperative complications, while there were morbidity 6 cases in LaTME group. Quality of mesorectal excision was comparable with 20 and 19 complete cases in TaTME and LaTME groups, respectively.

Conclusions

TaTME provided comparable outcomes in terms of functional outcomes in comparison to LaTME for total mesorectal excision in low rectal cancers. Having said that, LARS prevalence is still high and requires further evaluation of the technique.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs for esophagectomy

A perioperative treatment protocol, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) focuses on accelerating patient recovery. Previous studies confirmed that ERAS decreases surgical trauma and the stress response, which improved outcomes including reduced length of hospital stay (LOS) and decreased postoperative morbidity. While ERAS protocols have been successfully implemented in a variety of surgical disciplines (colorectal, bariatric, orthopedic, and gynecologic surgery), its use in esophageal surgery is still limited. This paper analyzes the feasibility and value of the ERAS protocol for esophageal surgery. Reviewing the literature found that implementation of ERAS resulted in decreased costs, length of stay and pulmonary specific complication reduction, but not overall morbidity. The evidence lacks randomized control trials. Further, the ERAS Society published recommendations for esophageal resection. This opportunity for unification of the protocol would make the studies more comparable and leads to stronger conclusions. Surgery specific items also require further confirmation. Nonetheless, the successful introduction of the ERAS protocol into a wide variety of surgical disciplines provides optimism for ERAS's effectiveness in esophageal surgery.

Transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes

Introduction

The benefit of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for mid and low rectal cancer is conflicting.

Aim

To assess and compare the short-term outcomes of TaTME with conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for middle and low rectal cancer.

Material and methods

We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases for studies addressing TaTME versus conventional LaTME for rectal cancer between 2008 and December 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies which compared TaTME with LaTME were included.

Results

Twelve retrospective case-control studies were identified, including a total of 899 patients. We did not find significant differences in overall intraoperative complications, blood loss, conversion rate, operative time, overall postoperative complication, anastomotic leakage, ileus, or urinary morbidity. Also no significant differences in oncological outcomes including circumferential resection margin (CRM), positive CRM, distal margin distance (DRM), positive DRM, quality of mesorectum, number of harvested lymph nodes, temporary stoma or local recurrence were found. Although the TaTME group had better postoperative outcomes (readmission, reoperation, length of hospital stay) on average, the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusions

Transanal total mesorectal excision offers a safe and feasible alternative to LaTME although the clinicopathological features were not superior to LaTME in this study. Currently, with the lack of evidence on benefits of TaTME, further evaluation of TaTME requires large randomized control trials to be conducted.

Evaluation of the learning curve of transanal total mesorectal excision: single-centre experience

Introduction

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been recently proposed to overcome the difficulties of the standard TME approach, allowing better visualization and dissection of the mesorectal fascia. Although TaTME seems very promising, the evidence and body of knowledge on achieving proficiency in performing it are still sparse.

Aim

To evaluate the learning curve of TaTME based on a single centre’s experience.

Material and methods

Consecutive patients undergoing TaTME since 2014 in a tertiary referral department were included in the study. All procedures were performed by one experienced surgeon. CUSUM curve analyses were performed to evaluate learning curves.

Results

Sixty-six patients underwent TaTME. After analysis of postoperative morbidity rate, intraoperative adverse effects and operative time, we estimated that 40 cases are needed to achieve TaTME proficiency. Subsequently, patients were divided into two groups: before (40 patients) and after overcoming the learning curve (26 patients). Group 1 had higher readmission (p = 0.041) and complication rates (p = 0.019). There were no statistically significant differences in terms of intraoperative adverse effects, length of stay or pathological quality of the specimen.

Conclusions

Transanal total mesorectal excision is a promising yet technically demanding procedure and requires at least 40 cases to complete the learning curve. More data are needed to introduce it as a standard procedure for low rectal cancer treatment.

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 ).