Outcomes of Watch-and-Wait Versus Abdominoperineal Resection in Lower Rectal Adenocarcinoma Post Neoadjuvant Therapy: An Iraqi Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Rectal malignancy ranks among the most prevalent malignancies in humans. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is advocated as the standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. In patients who achieve complete clinical response (cCR), successive surgical intervention may result in favorable immediate and long-lasting results; however, it may be associated with decreased quality of life. This study aims to evaluate the incidence of local recurrence in rectal adenocarcinoma between patients who underwent a watch-and-wait approach and those who underwent abdominoperineal resection following the achievement of a cCR after nCRT. METHODS: This is an analytic cohort study that included 68 patients and was conducted in Baghdad Teaching Hospital/Medical City, Baghdad. The data were collected from the 1st of April 2021 to the 1st of October 2023. All patients with stage II and III rectal adenocarcinoma who achieved cCR after receiving nCRT were included in the study. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the two study groups regarding non-regrowth disease-free survival (p-value = 0.708). Cox-regression multivariate analysis revealed that baseline T stage and serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) were significantly associated with locoregional failure. CONCLUSION: The present study reveals that implementing the watch-and-wait strategy had the benefit of avoiding major surgery, stoma, and their complications without coming at the cost of reduced locoregional recurrence.

Efficacy and long-term outcomes of abdominoperineal resection using transperineal total mesorectal excision approach for rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Although abdominoperineal resection (APR) is essential for a certain population of patients with low rectal cancer, it is technically difficult and sometimes contains oncological disadvantages. Thus, the use of the transperineal total mesorectal excision (TpTME) approach might overcome such concerns regarding APR. METHODS: In total, 27 patients who underwent conventional APR (conventional group) and 49 patients who underwent APR using the TpTME approach (TpTME group) for low rectal cancer were included. After propensity score matching, the outcomes of the 25 matched cases were compared between groups. RESULTS: The operative time was significantly shorter in the TpTME group than in the conventional group (452 vs. 565 min, P = 0.039). Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion rates were also significantly lower in the TpTME group than in the conventional group (25 mL vs. 200 mL, P < 0.001 and 0% vs. 28.0%, P = 0.015, respectively). Although the incidence of postoperative complications did not differ significantly, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the TpTME group than in the conventional group (24 vs. 36 days, P = 0.001). The 5 year relapse-free survival rates in the TpTME and conventional groups were 62.0% and 57.6%, respectively (P = 0.648). CONCLUSION: APR using the TpTME approach for the treatment of low rectal cancer is feasible and can achieve favorable oncological outcomes.

A rare case of primary signet-ring adenocarcinoma of anorectal region in a young patient: Diagnostic challenges and therapeutic outcomes.

Key Clinical Message: Primary signet-ring cell carcinoma of the anal canal and rectum is an extremely rare and aggressive malignancy. The present case underscores the importance of considering primary signet-ring cell carcinoma in differential diagnoses for young patients with chronic anorectal symptoms. It highlights the need for a multidisciplinary treatment approach (including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy) and comprehensive follow-up for managing this challenging condition and improving long-term patient outcomes. Abstract: Primary signet-ring cell carcinoma of the anal canal and rectum is an exceedingly rare subtype of colorectal adenocarcinoma, often originating as an extension of rectal adenocarcinoma. This malignancy constitutes a small fraction of colorectal cancers and is scarcely reported in medical literature. We present the case of an 18-year-old male with a three-year history of progressively worsening hematochezia, anorectal pain, and defecation-associated prolapse. Initial conservative treatments failed, leading to further investigations that revealed a palpable, nodular anorectal mass. Imaging studies (including CT and MRI), and biopsy confirmed poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with signet-ring cell morphology. The tumor exhibited extensive lymphovascular invasion and involved perirectal lymph nodes, and was staged as pT3, N2a. Immunohistochemical staining was positive for CK 7, CK 20, and SATB2, supporting the primary anorectal origin. The treatment regimen included initial diversion colostomies for symptom relief, followed by neoadjuvant chemotherapy with a modified 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) regimen and concurrent chemoradiation with Xeloda. The patient subsequently underwent an abdominoperineal resection (APR), which confirmed the diagnosis and achieved curative resection. Postoperative complications included transient ileus and wound infection, which were managed with supportive care. This case underscores the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges posed by primary signet-ring cell carcinoma of the anorectal region, highlighting the need for a high index of suspicion and comprehensive diagnostic workup in atypical presentations. The multimodal treatment approach, incorporating surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, was crucial in managing this locally advanced tumor. The rarity and aggressiveness of this carcinoma necessitate a tailored treatment strategy to improve patient outcomes. Long-term follow-up, including regular imaging and surveillance, is vital for monitoring disease recurrence and evaluating treatment effectiveness.

Application of modified extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer resection.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ELAPE surgery has been carried out in our center for a long time, and some modifications have been made in clinical practice. In this study, we compared conventional ELAPE operation with modified ELAPE operation to investigate the efficacy and safety of modified ELAPE operation. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data from 339 patients with low rectal cancer undergoing abdominoperineal resection from 2017 to 2021 in the Department of General Surgery, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University. Patients were classified into modified ELAPE groups (199 patients) and conventional ELAPE groups (140 patients). Total operation time, reconstruction time, postoperative hospital stay, total cost, intraoperative data, postoperative short-term and long-term complications and tumor recurrence were compared. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Total operation time was less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (190.6 ± 33.1 min vs 230.1 ± 51.6 min, P = 0.022). Pelvic floor reconstruction time was also less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (4.3 ± 1.2 min vs 11.9 ± 1.7 min, P = 0.004). Positive CRM was observed in 11 and 9 patients in modified ELAPE groups and conventional ELAPE groups (P = 0.744). IOP occurred in 12 and 7 patients in modified ELAPE group and conventional ELAPE group (P = 0.701). Total cost was also less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (9004 ± 1146 USD vs 10,336 ± 2047 USD, P = 0.031). The incidence of parastomal hernia was less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (7/199 vs 22/140, P < 0.001). Three-year follow-up data did not show any difference in overall survival rate or local occurrence between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Modified ELAPE surgery is technically safe and feasible, and oncologically comparable to that of conventional ELAPE surgery, which can be considered for popularization and application.

Omentoplasty versus cecal mobilization after abdominoperineal resection: A propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the minimally invasive approach and early rehabilitation, abdominal-perineal resection (APR) remains a procedure with high morbidity, notably due to postoperative trapped bowel ileus and perineal healing complications. Several surgical techniques have been described for filling the pelvic void to prevent abscess formation and ileus by trapped bowel loop. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to compare the post APR complications for cancer of two of these techniques, omentoplasty and cecal mobilization, in a single-center study from an expert colorectal surgery center. PATIENTS: From 2012 to 2022, 84 patients were included, including 58 (69%) with omentoplasty and 26 (31%) with cecal mobilization. They all underwent APR at Bordeaux University Hospital Center. SETTINGS: A propensity score was used to avoid confounding factors as far as possible. Patient and procedure characteristics were initially comparable. RESULTS: The 30-day complication rate was significantly higher in the cecal mobilization group (53.8% vs. 5.2% p < 0.01), as was the rate of pelvic abscess (34.6% vs. 0% p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that, when feasible, omentoplasty should be considered the preferred method for pelvic reconstruction following APR.

Incidence and risk factors for perineal hernia after robotic abdominoperineal resection: a single-center, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Perineal hernia (PH) is a late complication of abdominoperineal resection (APR) that may compromise a patient's quality of life. The frequency and risk factors for PH after robotic APR adopting recent rectal cancer treatment strategies remain unclear. METHODS: Patients who underwent robotic APR for rectal cancer between December 2011 and June 2022 were retrospectively examined. From July 2020, pelvic reinforcement procedures, such as robotic closure of the pelvic peritoneum and levator ani muscles, were performed as prophylactic procedures for PH whenever feasible. PH was diagnosed in patients with or without symptoms using computed tomography 1 year after surgery. We examined the frequency of PH, compared characteristics between patients with PH (PH+) and without PH (PH-), and identified risk factors for PH. RESULTS: We evaluated 142 patients, including 53 PH+ (37.3%) and 89 PH- (62.6%). PH+ had a significantly higher rate of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (26.4% versus 10.1%, p = 0.017) and a significantly lower rate of undergoing pelvic reinforcement procedures (1.9% versus 14.0%, p = 0.017). PH+ had a lower rate of lateral lymph node dissection (47.2% versus 61.8%, p = 0.115) and a shorter operative time (340 min versus 394 min, p = 0.110). According to multivariate analysis, the independent risk factors for PH were preoperative chemoradiotherapy, not undergoing lateral lymph node dissection, and not undergoing a pelvic reinforcement procedure. CONCLUSIONS: PH after robotic APR for rectal cancer is not a rare complication under the recent treatment strategies for rectal cancer, and performing prophylactic procedures for PH should be considered.

Comparison of outcomes of abdominoperineal resection vs low anterior resection in very-low rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The management of very-low rectal cancer is one of the most challenging issues faced by general and colorectal surgeons. Many feel compelled to pursue abdominoperineal resection (APR) over low anterior resection (LAR) to optimize oncologic outcomes. This study aimed to determine differences in long-term oncologic outcomes between patients undergoing APR or LAR for very-low rectal cancer. METHODS: The United States Rectal Cancer Consortium (2010-2016) was queried for adults who underwent either APR or LAR for stage I-III rectal cancers < 5 cm from anorectal junction and met inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, length of stay, complications, recurrence location, and perioperative factors. RESULTS: A total of 431 patients with very-low rectal cancer who underwent APR or LAR were identified; 154 (35.7%) underwent APR. The overall recurrence rate was 19.6%. The median follow-up was 42.5 months. An analysis adjusted for demographics and pathologic stage observed no difference in disease-free survival between operative types (APR-hazard ratio [HR] = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.53-1.52, P = .70). Secondary outcomes demonstrated no significant difference between operation types, including overall survival (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.71-2.32, P = .39), complications (OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.94-2.50, P = .12), or length of stay (estimate: 0.04, SE = 0.25, P = .54). CONCLUSION: We observed no significant difference in disease-free survival or overall survival between patients undergoing APR or LAR for very-low rectal cancer. This analysis supports the treatment of very-low rectal cancer, without sphincter involvement, by either APR or LAR.

Hartmann's Procedure Versus Intersphincteric Abdominoperineal Excision in Patients with Rectal Cancer: Report from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry (SCRCR).

Objective: The primary outcome was to compare overall postoperative surgical complications within 30 days after Hartmann's procedure (HP) compared with intersphincteric abdominoperineal excision (iAPE). The secondary outcome was major surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III). Background: There is uncertainty regarding the optimal surgical method in patients with rectal cancer when an anastomosis is unsuitable. Methods: Rectal cancer patients with a tumor height >5 cm, registered in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry who received HP or iAPE electively in 2017-2020 were included, (HP, n = 696; iAPE, n = 314). Logistic regression analysis adjusting for body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, sex, age, preoperative radiotherapy, tumor height, cancer stage, operating hospital, and type of operation was performed. Results: Patients in the HP group were older and had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores. The mean operating time was less for HP (290 vs 377 min). Intraoperative bowel perforations were less frequent in the HP group, 3.6% versus 10.2%. Overall surgical complication rates were 20.3% after HP and 15.9% after iAPE (P = 0.118). Major surgical complications were 7.5% after HP and 5.7% and after iAPE (P = 0.351). Multiple regression analysis indicated a higher risk of overall surgical complications after HP (odds ratio: 1.63; 95% confidence interval = 1.09-2.45). Conclusions: HP was associated with a higher risk of surgical complications compared with iAPE. In patients unfit for anastomosis, iAPE may be preferable. However, the lack of statistical power regarding major surgical complications, prolonged operating time, increased risk of bowel perforation, and lack of long-term outcomes, raises uncertainty regarding recommending intersphincteric abdominoperineal excision as the preferred surgical approach.

Low Hartmann's procedure versus abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer, a propensity score matching cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare low Hartmann's procedure (LHP) with abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer (RC) regarding postoperative complications. METHOD: RC patients receiving radical LHP or APR from 2015 to 2019 in our center were retrospectively enrolled. Patients' demographic and surgical information was collected and analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline information. The primary outcome was the incidence of major complications. All the statistical analysis was performed by SPSS 22.0 and R. RESULTS: 342 individuals were primarily included and 134 remained after PSM with a 1:2 ratio (50 in LHP and 84 in APR). Patients in the LHP group were associated with higher tumor height (P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the two groups for the incidence of major complications (6.0% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.290), and severe pelvic abscess (2% vs. 0%, P = 0.373). However, the occurrence rate of minor complications was significantly higher in the LHP group (52% vs. 21.4%, P < 0.001), and the difference mainly lay in abdominal wound infection (10% vs. 0%, P = 0.006) and bowel obstruction (16% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.028). LHP was not the independent risk factor of pelvic abscess in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrated a comparable incidence of major complications between LHP and APR. LHP was still a reliable alternative in selected RC patients when primary anastomosis was not recommended.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Following Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The usefulness of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been reported; however, few reports exist on robotic abdominoperineal resection (APR). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery to determine their usefulness in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who had undergone preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 43 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent preoperative CRT and robotic (22 patients) or laparoscopic APR (21 patients) between December 2012 and September 2022. We examined the short- and long-term outcomes in the robotic and laparoscopic groups. RESULTS: The median follow-up durations were 36 and 48 months for the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively. No significant differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, or overall complication rates were observed. However, the incidence of organ/space surgical site infection (SSI) was significantly lower in the robotic surgery group than in the laparoscopic group (9.1% vs. 38.1%, p=0.034) and the 3-year overall survival rate was significantly higher in the robotic surgery group than in the laparoscopic group (95% vs. 67%, p=0.029). CONCLUSION: Robotic APR was associated with a significantly lower rate of organ/space SSIs than the laparoscopic approach, indicating the usefulness of the robotic approach.

Rare strangulated intenal hernia following extraperitoneal colostomy for rectal cancer operation: A case report.

INTRODUCTION: Few cases of intestinal obstruction after colostomy are caused by internal hernia. Some institutions perform stomas through the extraperitoneal route because some patients experience an internal hernia outside the stoma performed through the intraperitoneal route. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A 72-year-old woman presented with a history of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR). A sigmoid colostomy was performed via the extraperitoneal route during APR. One month after APR, the patient presented to the emergency department of our hospital with abdominal pain and vomiting. Computed tomography revealed that the small intestine had passed through the extraperitoneal tunnel, resulting in strangulated intestinal obstruction, and emergency laparotomy was performed. During surgery, the ileum passed behind the elevated sigmoid colon in a caudal-to-cranial direction and formed an unusual closed loop. The strangulated part of the small intestine showed ischemic change; however, the intestine quickly normalized soon after strangulation was released, and the operation was completed without resection of the intestine. DISCUSSION: The major cause of intestinal obstruction after colostomy is intraperitoneal adhesion. Looseness of the elevated sigmoid colon can cause internal hernia, if under pneumoperitoneum, when a colostomy is created through the extraperitoneal route in laparoscopic APR. Furthermore, the patient had lost more than 5 kg of body weight after the surgery, which may have led to the looseness of the elevated sigmoid colon. CONCLUSION: Releasing the pneumoperitoneum during the elevation of the sigmoid colon is necessary to prevent internal hernia, even with a colostomy performed through the extraperitoneal route.1.

Robotic vs laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: A propensity score matching cohort study and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery (RS) is gaining popularity; however, evidence for abdominoperineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer (RC) is scarce. AIM: To compare the efficacy of RS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) in APR for RC. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with RC who underwent APR by RS or LS from April 2016 to June 2022. Data regarding short-term surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups. To reduce the effect of potential confounding factors, propensity score matching was used, with a 1:1 ratio between the RS and LS groups. A meta-analysis of seven trials was performed to compare the efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic APR for RC surgery. RESULTS: Of 133 patients, after propensity score matching, there were 42 patients in each group. The postoperative complication rate was significantly lower in the RS group (17/42, 40.5%) than in the LS group (27/42, 64.3%) (P = 0.029). There was no significant difference in operative time (P = 0.564), intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.314), reoperation rate (P = 0.314), lymph nodes harvested (P = 0.309), or circumferential resection margin (CRM) positive rate (P = 0.314) between the two groups. The meta-analysis showed patients in the RS group had fewer positive CRMs (P = 0.04), lesser estimated blood loss (P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (P = 0.02), and fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.002) than patients in the LS group. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that RS is a safe and effective approach for APR in RC and offers better short-term outcomes than LS.

The Curious Incidence of Mucinous Adenocarcinoma Masquerading as Perianal Hidradenitis Suppurativa.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), also known as acne inversa, is a chronic inflammatory disorder affecting the terminal follicular epithelium within the apocrine skin glands. When these lesions develop in the genital and perianal regions, there is a potential risk of progression to squamous cell carcinoma or mucinous adenocarcinoma. The tumor may appear in the perianal area, perineum, or buttocks. Here, we present a rare case of long-standing perianal HS with associated fistula-related mucinous adenocarcinoma and the challenges we faced in managing this condition.

Short- and long-term morbidity after Taylor flap (oblique rectus abdominis flap) for perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection: A single-center series of 140 patients.

BACKGROUND: Abdominoperineal resection (APR) leads to a substantial loss of tissue and a high rate of complications. The Taylor flap is a musculocutaneous flap used in reconstruction after APR. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to analyze the short and long-term morbidity of reconstruction with a Taylor flap (oblique rectus abdominis flap) after APR and to identify the risk factors for postoperative complications. METHODS: We retrospectively included all patients who had undergone APR with immediate reconstruction with a Taylor flap in our department between July 2000 and June 2018. Demographics, oncological data, treatment, and short- and long-term morbidity were reviewed. RESULTS: Among the 140 patients included, we identified early minor complications in 42 patients (30%) and 14 early major complications (10%). Total necrosis of the flap requiring its removal occurred in four patients (2.8%). Eleven patients (7.9%) presented with a midline incision hernia, and seven (5%) presented with a subcostal incision hernia. No perineal hernia was found. No risk factors for the complications were identified. CONCLUSION: The Taylor flap is a safe procedure with few complications and limited donor site morbidity. Moreover, it prevents perineal hernias. These results confirm that the Taylor flap is a well-suited procedure for reconstruction after APR.

Revisiting the Trans-Sacral Approach for Large Rectal Adenomas, Surgical Technique, and Oncological Outcome: a Case Series.

The standard oncologic surgeries for rectal carcinoma are radical trans abdominal procedures, However, these radical procedures are not suitable for large rectal adenomas. The transsacral approach for rectal adenoma was first described by Kraske and since then it has been utilized for various benign conditions of low and mid-rectum as well as for certain cancers. We are presenting a series of 5 consecutive cases of trans-sacral resection done in the past 7 years between January, 2016, until June, 2023, at the Department of Surgical Oncology, Cancer Research Institute, HIMS Dehradun, for large mid- and lower rectal adenoma. There were 5 patients who underwent transsacral excision of rectal adenoma. Three patients were male and 2 were female. All the patients underwent surgery after confirming the diagnosis of adenoma and metastatic work up. The postoperative histopathological examination showed adenocarcinoma infiltrating submucosa (T1) in one patient; however, other 4 patients had adenoma reconfirmed. The transsacral approach may not be the method of choice for the rectal carcinoma but it is a very useful surgical alternative to the large rectal adenoma where there is no invasive component and which cannot be managed by any other methods.

Primary closure versus vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap closure of perineal wound following abdominoperineal resection-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE/AIM: Perianal wound healing and/or complications are common following abdominoperineal resection (APR). Although primary closure is commonly undertaken, myocutaneous flap closure such as vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (VRAM) is thought to improve wound healing process and outcome. A comprehensive meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes of primary closure versus VRAM flap closure of perineal wound following APR. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were comprehensively searched until the 8th of August 2023. Included studies underwent meta-analysis to compare outcomes of primary closure versus VRAM flap closure of perineal wound following APR. The primary outcome of interest was perineal wound complications, and the secondary outcomes were abdominal wound complications, dehiscence, wound healing time, length of hospital stay, and mortality. RESULTS: Ten studies with 1141 patients were included. Overall, 853 patients underwent primary closure (74.8%) and 288 patients underwent VRAM (25.2%). Eight studies reported on perineal wound complications after APR: 38.2% (n = 263/688) in the primary closure group versus 32.8% (n = 80/244) in the VRAM group. Perineal complication rates were statistically significantly lower in the VRAM group versus primary closure ((M-H OR, 1.61; 95% CI 1.04-2.49;

Operative trends following the adoption of nonoperative management of rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Differentiating clinical near-complete and complete responses (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is challenging in rectal cancer patients. We hypothesized that magnetic resonance imaging staging limitations for low rectal cancers may increase the proportion of abdominoperineal resection (APR) with permanent colostomy for those without a cCR. METHODS: Single institution retrospective analysis of rectal cancer cases before and after adoption of nonoperative "watch and wait" (W&W) pathway. APR as a percentage of rectal resections was the primary outcome. RESULTS: There were 76 total mesorectal excisions (TME) in the pre-W&W group and 98 in the post-W&W group. NT was significantly more common in the post-W&W group. There was no significant difference in the APR primary outcome (pre-W&W APR 33.3% vs. post-W&W APR 26.5%, p = 0.482). APR patients had fewer complete TME grades (69.2% vs. 46.2%) and more pathologic complete responses (0% vs. 26.9%) in the post-W&W period. The cCR rate for patients with nonoperative management was 51.4% (n = 37) and 13.5% (n = 5) had regrowths, all of whom underwent salvage surgery. CONCLUSION: APR for those without a cCR to NT has not increased in the nonoperative management era. Balancing the pathologic complete response rate may require restaging some patients with clinical near-complete responses.

Metabolic and Nutritional Issues after Lower Digestive Tract Surgery: The Important Role of the Dietitian in a Multidisciplinary Setting.

Many patients undergo small bowel and colon surgery for reasons related to malignancy, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), mesenteric ischemia, and other benign conditions, including post-operative adhesions, hernias, trauma, volvulus, or diverticula. Some patients arrive in the operating theatre severely malnourished due to an underlying disease, while others develop complications (e.g., anastomotic leaks, abscesses, or strictures) that induce a systemic inflammatory response that can increase their energy and protein requirements. Finally, anatomical and functional changes resulting from surgery can affect either nutritional status due to malabsorption or nutritional support (NS) pathways. The dietitian providing NS to these patients needs to understand the pathophysiology underlying these sequelae and collaborate with other professionals, including surgeons, internists, nurses, and pharmacists. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the nutritional and metabolic consequences of different types of lower gastrointestinal surgery and the role of the dietitian in providing comprehensive patient care. This article reviews the effects of small bowel resection on macronutrient and micronutrient absorption, the effects of colectomies (e.g., ileocolectomy, low anterior resection, abdominoperineal resection, and proctocolectomy) that require special dietary considerations, nutritional considerations specific to ostomized patients, and clinical practice guidelines for caregivers of patients who have undergone a surgery for local and systemic complications of IBD. Finally, we highlight the valuable contribution of the dietitian in the challenging management of short bowel syndrome and intestinal failure.