European Society of Coloproctology: Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of cryptoglandular anal fistula.

AIM: The primary aim of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) Guideline Development Group (GDG) was to produce high-quality, evidence-based guidelines for the management of cryptoglandular anal fistula with input from a multidisciplinary group and using transparent, reproducible methodology. METHODS: Previously published methodology in guideline development by the ESCP has been replicated in this project. The guideline development process followed the requirements of the AGREE-S tool kit. Six phases can be identified in the methodology. Phase one sets the scope of the guideline, which addresses the diagnostic and therapeutic management of perianal abscess and cryptoglandular anal fistula in adult patients presenting to secondary care. The target population for this guideline are healthcare practitioners in secondary care and patients interested in understanding the clinical evidence available for various surgical interventions for anal fistula. Phase two involved formulation of the GDG. The GDG consisted of 21 coloproctologists, three research fellows, a radiologist and a methodologist. Stakeholders were chosen for their clinical and academic involvement in the management of anal fistula as well as being representative of the geographical variation among the ESCP membership. Five patients were recruited from patient groups to review the draft guideline. These patients attended two virtual meetings to discuss the evidence and suggest amendments. In phase three, patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes questions were formulated by the GDG. The GDG ratified 250 questions and chose 45 for inclusion in the guideline. In phase four, critical and important outcomes were confirmed for inclusion. Important outcomes were pain and wound healing. Critical outcomes were fistula healing, fistula recurrence and incontinence. These outcomes formed part of the inclusion criteria for the literature search. In phase five, a literature search was performed of MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Embase (Ovid) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews by eight teams of the GDG. Data were extracted and submitted for review by the GDG in a draft guideline. The most recent systematic reviews were prioritized for inclusion. Studies published since the most recent systematic review were included in our analysis by conducting a new meta-analysis using Review manager. In phase six, recommendations were formulated, using grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations, in three virtual meetings of the GDG. RESULTS: In seven sections covering the diagnostic and therapeutic management of perianal abscess and cryptoglandular anal fistula, there are 42 recommendations. CONCLUSION: This is an up-to-date international guideline on the management of cryptoglandular anal fistula using methodology prescribed by the AGREE enterprise.

Operative, long-term and quality of life outcomes after salvage of failed re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis.

AIM: Approximately 20%-40% of the patients with re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) experience pouch failure. Salvage surgery can be attempted in this patient group with severe aversion to permanent ileostomy. The literature regarding secondary IPAA revision after re-do IPAA failure is scarce. METHODS: All patients who underwent a secondary IPAA revision after re-do IPAA failure between September 2016 and July 2021 in a single centre were included. Short- and long-term outcomes and quality of life in this patient group are reported. RESULTS: Ten patients who had secondary IPAA revision for re-do IPAA failure were included. All patients had ulcerative colitis. Nine of these patients had pelvic sepsis and one patient had a mechanical issue. Mucosectomy and handsewn anastomosis was performed in nine patients. The existing pouch was salvaged in six patients and four patients had pouch excision and re-creation. Two patients had postoperative pelvic sepsis. Pouch retention rate was 78% in a median of 28 months. None of the patients had short-gut syndrome. The procedure was associated with good quality of life (median Cleveland Global Quality of Life Index 0.8). All patients would undergo the same surgery if needed. CONCLUSION: Secondary IPAA revision after a failed re-do IPAA can be an option in patients with severe aversion to permanent ileostomy if re-do IPAA fails and it is associated with good outcomes. This patient group should be carefully evaluated and referred to specialized centres if required.

Tailored total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: One size may not fit for all!

While current neoadjuvant protocols have proven benefits on local control for majority of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, there are certain clinical conditions that require future advances for improving the outcomes. Total neoadjuvant therapy incorporates systemic chemotherapy planned within standard neoadjuvant protocols either before or after radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer as a whole. Enhanced compliance with planned oncological therapy, tumour downstaging, administration of chemotherapy at the earliest time in the disease course to help assessing chemosensitivity are the proposed benefits of total neoadjuvant therapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Patient selection criteria for administration of total neoadjuvant therapy in the recent guidelines are unclear. Since current literature is inconclusive for the optimal sequence and type of radiotherapy and chemotherapy, premature incorporation of total neoadjuvant therapy for all locally advanced rectal cancers may result in overtreatment and subsequently toxicity. This article aims to discuss the current literature and to propose a future perspective by considering real-life scenarios reflecting patients' needs for treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Metastasis to lymph nodes around the vascular tie worsens long-term oncological outcomes following complete mesocolic excision and conventional colectomy for right-sided colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oncologic outcomes after complete mesocolic excision (CME) in colon cancer are under investigation. The aim of our study was to compare CME and conventional colectomy (CC) in terms of pathological and oncological outcomes for right colon cancer and to evaluate the impact of lymph node metastasis around the vascular tie on survival. METHODS: Consecutive patients with right colon cancer who had CME or CC between January 2011 and August 2018 at two specialized centers in Turkey were included. Statistical analyses were performed with respect to demographic characteristics, operative and pathologic outcomes, harvested and metastatic lymph nodes around the vascular tie (LNVT), recurrences, and survival. RESULTS: There were 91 patients in the CME group (58 males, mean age 64 ± 16 years) and 192 patients in the CC group (96 males, mean age 66 ± 14 years). The mean number of harvested lymph nodes (CME: 42 ± 15 vs CC: 34 ± 13, p = 0.01) and LNVT were higher in the CME group (CME: 3.2 ± 2.2 vs CC: 2.4 ± 1.6, p = 0.001). LNVT metastases were 7.7% and 8.3% in the CME and CC groups, respectively (p = 0.85). Three-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 96.4% and 90.9% in the CME group and 90.4% and 87.6% in the CC group in stage I-III patients (p > 0.05). In stage III patients, the 3-year overall survival (92.5% vs 63.5%, p = 0.03) and disease-free survival (85.6% vs 52.1%, p = 0.008) were significantly better in LNVT-negative patients than in LNVT-positive patients. CONCLUSION: LNVT metastasis seems to be the key factor associated with poor disease-free and overall survival in right colon cancer regardless of the radicality of surgery.

A narrative on diversity, equity, and inclusion in surgery: insights from the European Society of Coloproctology and identification of points for action.

The focus of the 2022 European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) annual campaign was diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in surgery. The ESCP "Operation Equal Access" campaign sought to interview key-opinion leaders and trainees, to raise awareness on inequalities, inform the community of the status of the topic, and to identify future areas for improvement. The ESCP Social Media Working Group interviewed experts who have made significant contributions to DEI in colorectal surgery and were acknowledged opinion leaders in the field. The interviews focused on their career, professional life, experiences, and opportunities during their training, and their views on DEI in colorectal surgery. DEI principles, education, and values need further promotion to reduce and address bias within the profession and overall improve the experience of minority community including health professionals and patients. International Societies are working to facilitate training opportunities and overcome DEI, and networking have contributed to that. Collaborations between societies will be pivotal to contribute to offering research and leadership opportunities equally. Access to advanced workshops including cadaveric training and simulation can be consistently promoted and provided globally via societies through telemonitoring. Involving patients in research should be encouraged, as it brings the perspective of a living experience.

Hepaticojejunostomy with the "Hand-Fan" technique.

A standard hepaticojejunostomy technique might be difficult to perform, especially when the bile duct is small and located deep in the liver hilum. Herein we present a new procedure, the Hand-Fan technique, that was used to enhance the exposure and ease the performance of these challenging anastomoses. Thirty-one patients who had had hepaticojejunostomy with this technique for bile duct injury and other benign biliary pathologies from July 2004 to June 2011 were included into the study. Median postoperative hospital stay was 7 days (6-25 days) and median follow-up time was 33 months (2-84 months). Liver function tests revealed that the blood bilirubin levels of the patients were normalized after hepaticojejunostomy. Follow-up showed that there were no signs of clinical recurrence or impaired bile flow. The Hand-Fan technique considerably facilitates challenging hepaticojejunostomies. Surgeon's comfort is exceptional and the clinical results are satisfactory.

Indications, functional and quality of life outcomes of new pouch creation during re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis: A comparative study with existing pouch salvage.

BACKGROUND: Salvage of the existing ileal pouch is favored during re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis if the pouch is not damaged after pelvic dissection and there are no other mechanical reasons that may necessitate construction of a new pouch. Excision of the existing pouch may be associated with some concerns for short-bowel syndrome and poor functional outcomes. This study aimed to report indications and compare functional and quality of life outcomes of new pouch creation versus salvage of the existing pouch during re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis. METHODS: Patients who underwent re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis between September 2016 and June 2020 were included. The reasons for pouch excision and new pouch creation were reported. Perioperative, functional outcomes and quality of life were compared between patients who had creation of a new pouch versus salvage of existing pouch. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients with re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis (new pouch, n = 63) were included. Most common indications for a new pouch creation were chronic pelvic infection that compromised the integrity and viability of the existing pouch (n = 32) and small pouch (n = 21). No patient developed short-bowel syndrome. The number of bowel movements, daily restrictions and Cleveland Global Quality of Life score scores were similar between 2 groups. Day-time seepage, day-time and night-time pad usage were more common after new pouch creation. Two-year pouch survival rates were comparable (new pouch: 92% versus existing pouch: 85%, P = .31). CONCLUSION: New pouch creation can be safely performed at the time of re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis. It provides acceptable functional and quality of life outcomes if existing pouch salvage is not feasible.

Ileal Pouch Excision can Be Performed With Similar Outcomes in Obese Patients Compared to Nonobese Counterparts: An Assessment From American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

BACKGROUND: Failed pouches may tend to be managed with only a loop ileostomy in obese patients due to some safety concerns. The effect of obesity on ileal pouch excision outcomes is poorly studied. In our study, we aimed to assess the short-term outcomes after ileal pouch excision in obese patients compared to their nonobese counterparts. METHODS: The patients who underwent pouch excision between 2005 and 2017 were included using ACS-NSQIP participant user files. The operative outcomes were compared between obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and nonobese (BMI<30 kg/m2) groups. RESULTS: There were 507 pouch excision patients included of which eighty (15.7%) of them were obese. Physical status of the obese patients tended to be worse (ASA>3, 56.3 vs 42.9%, P = .027). There were more patients who had diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension (HT) in the obese group (26.3% vs. 11.2%, P = .015; 11.3 vs. 4.4%, P < .001, respectively). Operative time was similar between 2 groups (mean ± SD, 275 ± 111 vs. 252±111 minutes, P = .084). Deep incisional SSI was more commonly observed in the obese group (7.5 vs 2.8%, P = .038). In multivariate analysis, only deep incisional SSI was found to be independently associated with obesity (OR: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.02-7.67). Obese patients were readmitted more frequently than nonobese counterparts (28.3 vs 16%, P = .035). The length of hospital stay was comparable [median (IQR), 7 (4-13.5) vs. 7 (5-11) days, P = .942]. CONCLUSION: Ileal pouch excision can be performed in obese patients with largely similar outcomes compared to their nonobese counterparts although obesity is associated with a higher rate of deep space infection.

Laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal vs robotic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: Assessment of short- and long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (L-TEP) and robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (R-TAPP) inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: Patients were classified into two groups: L-TEP and R-TAPP. The groups were case-matched in a 1:1 ratio based on age, gender, and body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: Out of 86 patients, 43 patients were matched in each group based on the study criteria. Demographics were comparable between the groups. Operative time was significantly longer for the R-TAPP compared to L-TEP (129.1 ± 47.2 min vs 92.5 ± 28.3 min; P < .001). VAS scores at 24 hours after surgery were significantly higher in the L-TEP compared to R-TAPP (36.8 ± 20.1 vs 20.3 ± 18.7; P < .001). Total hospital costs were 4778$ for R-TAPP and 3852$ for L-TEP. CONCLUSION: The current study demonstrates similar long-term postoperative outcomes and recurrence rates between robotic and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in a case-matched fashion.

Adoption of robotic technology in Turkey: A nationwide analysis on caseload and platform used.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding adoption of evolving robotic technology in surgery. This study evaluated trends and the current condition of robotic platforms in surgical specialties and general surgical subspecialties. METHODS: Between January 2013 and December 2017, all robotic operations performed in Turkey were included. RESULTS: In the study period, 13 760 robotic operations were performed at 32 hospitals. The median numbers of general surgical procedures were 43and eight cases per hospital and per general surgeon, respectively. The high-volume general surgeons performed 1734 (81%) of the cases. Forty-five percent and 55% of the general surgical operations were performed with the Xi and S/Si robots, respectively. CONCLUSION: Use of the Xi platform seems to increase caseload in general surgery operations possibly by facilitating robotic colorectal surgery. Targeting the high-volume centres and surgeons for further training and implantation of upcoming robotic technology can be more effective in terms of increasing case volume and improving outcomes.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Stapler Use for Rectal Transection in Robotic Surgery for Cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to compare the operative and short-term postoperative outcomes of the robotic and laparoscopic staplers in patients undergoing rectal surgery for cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between December 2014 and April 2017, patients consecutively undergoing robotic rectal surgery for cancer were included in this study. Patients were grouped into two according to the type of staplers for rectal transection [Robotic (45-mm) versus Laparoscopic (60-mm) linear staplers]. Patient demographics, pathologic data, perioperative outcomes, and short-term results were compared. RESULTS: One hundred seven patients met our inclusion criteria. The number of male patients were higher in robotic stapler group than in the laparoscopic stapler group (55% versus 76%, P = .03). Age (59 versus 63 years, P = .40), body mass index (27 versus 27 kg/m2, P = .60), American Society of Anesthesiologists score (2 versus 2, P = .20), number of prior abdominal operations (31% versus 20%, P = .22) and number of patients having neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (34% versus 36%, P = .86) were comparable between the groups. The numbers of cartridges used were similar regardless of the type of staplers (2 versus 2, P = .58). The overall complication was similar between the groups (24% versus 31%, P = .32). Leak rates were 5% (n = 2) and 3% (n = 2) in the robotic and laparoscopic stapler groups, respectively (p = 1). There was no mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study evaluating the role of robotic stapler specifically for rectal transection in comparative manner. The use of robotic stapler for rectal transection was safe and feasible in rectal surgery for cancer.

Case-matched Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Proctectomy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

The present study reports an early institutional experience with robotic proctectomy (RP) and outcome comparison with laparoscopic proctectomy (LP) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Patients who underwent either RP or LP during proctocolectomy for IBD between January 2010 and June 2014 were matched (1:1) and reviewed. Twenty-one patients undergoing RP fulfilled the study criteria and were matched with an equal number of patients who had LP. Operative time was longer (304 vs. 213 min, P=0.008) and estimated blood loss was higher in the RP group (360 vs. 188 mL, P=0.002). Conversion rates (9.5% vs. 14.3%, P>0.99), time to first bowel movement(2.29±1.53 vs. 2.79±2.26, P=0.620), and hospital length stay(7.85±6.41 vs. 9.19±7.47 d, P=0.390) were similar in both groups. No difference was noted in postoperative complications, ileal pouch to anal canal anastomosis-related outcomes, Cleveland Global Quality of Life, and Short Form-12 health survey outcomes between RP and LP. Our good results with standard laparoscopy are unlikely to be improved with robotics in proctectomy cases. Potential benefits of robotic approach for completion proctectomy warrant further investigation as experience grows with robotics.

Is there still a role for continent ileostomy in the surgical treatment of inflammatory bowel disease?

The continent ileostomy (CI) was first described in 1969 as an important advancement in the surgical treatment of patients with ulcerative colitis, providing an option for fecal continence to patients who would otherwise require a conventional ileostomy. The CI enjoyed a brief period of relative popularity during the 1970s before being displaced by today's gold standard for the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis, the restorative proctocolectomy (ileal pouch-anal anastomosis [IPAA]). Although the CI is only rarely performed today, it still has a role to play in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease who have failed medical treatment. Current indications are patients with failed IPAAs who are not candidates for redo-IPAA, patients who require total proctocolectomy but cannot be reconstructed with IPAA, and patients with an existing conventional ileostomy that is adversely affecting their quality of life. CI, however, is a complex procedure that carries significant risk of both postoperative complications and the need for reoperation over the long term due to slippage of the nipple valve. Patients being considered for this procedure should undergo extensive preoperative counseling and must have a thorough understanding of the associated risks and a realistic vision of anticipated benefits. In well-selected and properly motivated patients, however, CI can be durable in the majority with long-term pouch survival rates approaching 80%. Published data suggest that these patients enjoy greater quality of life than their counterparts with a conventional ileostomy and that 95% would choose to undergo the procedure again or recommend it to another.

Functional outcomes and complications after restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis in the pediatric population.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding the long-term outcomes of restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis including pouch function and quality of life in the pediatric population are limited in pediatric patients. STUDY DESIGN: Indications for surgery, complications, long-term function, and quality of life were evaluated in pediatric patients undergoing ileal pouch anal anastomosis. Assessment of quality of life was performed using the Cleveland Global Quality of Life score. RESULTS: There were 433 patients with a mean age of 18.04 ± 2.9 years. Final pathologic diagnoses were ulcerative colitis or indeterminate colitis (78.3%), familial adenomatous polyposis (15.7%), Crohn's disease (5.1%), and others (0.9%). There were 237 patients (54.7%) who underwent total proctocolectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis; 196 (45.3%) underwent initial subtotal colectomy followed by completion proctectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis. Anastomosis was stapled in 352 patients (81.3%) and hand-sewn in 81 (18.7%) patients. Mean follow-up was 108.5 ± 78.4 months. At the most recent follow-up, mean Cleveland Global Quality of Life score was 0.8 ± 0.2 and numbers of daytime and night-time bowel movements were 5.3 ± 3.1 and 1.6 ± 1.3, respectively. The majority of the patients (86.8%) were fully continent or only complained of rare incontinence. Most patients had no seepage (day, 84.3%; night, 72.4%) and did not wear any pads (day, 89.3%; night, 84.3%). Most denied dietary (71.3%), social (84.8%), work (85.7%), or sexual restrictions (87.6%) at the time of last follow-up. There were 92.7% of patients who said they would undergo ileal pouch anal anastomosis again and 95.2% would recommend surgery to others. CONCLUSIONS: Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis can be performed in pediatric patients with acceptable morbidity and is associated with good long-term results in terms of gastrointestinal function, quality of life, and patient satisfaction.

Total laparoscopic approach for the treatment of right colon cancer: a technical critique.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Total laparoscopic surgery is not a new concept, but it is not preferred generally for right colectomy. The aim of the study is to evaluate the outcomes, which are related with surgical technique after total laparoscopic right colectomy (TLRC) and laparoscopic-assisted right colectomy (LARC) for right colon cancer in 30 consecutive patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with right colon cancer, half of which were treated with TLRC and half of which were treated with LARC, were compared with regard to patient demographics, operative and postoperative data, histopathologic findings, follow-up data, and the complications related to the surgical technique. RESULTS: There were 16 men and 14 women, median age was 63 years (range 41-86) with a body mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m2 (range 20-33). There were no differences between the groups for BMI, harvested lymph node number, or distal and radial margins. The length of the incision and the length of the postoperative stay was shorter in the TLRC group (p=0.000). Overall complications were higher in the LARC group than in the TLRC group (p=0.014). The median follow-up was 28 months (range 5-99). In the late period, two patients in the LARC group were reoperated on. The cause of reoperation was internal herniation in one patient due to ileal twisting and incisional hernia in the other one. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary data indicate that TLRC could result in better outcomes for right colon cancer patients than LARC.