Consistency between POLARS and LARS scores regarding the incidence of low anterior resection syndrome in a Chilean population undergoing rectal surgery secondary to cancer in a high-volume hospital.

AIM: The aim of this work was to evaluate the concordance between the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) and preoperative LARS (POLARS) scores regarding the incidence of LARS in a Chilean population undergoing rectal surgery for cancer in a high-volume hospital. METHOD: The LARS score questionnaire, following telephone requests, was used to determine the presence and severity of LARS. The POLARS score was calculated based on variables described previously. Correlations and qualitative and quantitative concordance were evaluated using Spearman's correlation coefficient, the kappa coefficient and the Bland-Altman plot with Lin's concordance correlation coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients met the inclusion criteria: 37.5% underwent neoadjuvant radiotherapy, 61% underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) and 51.6% underwent ostomy. A total of 49% of patients did not present with LARS, whereas 28% had major LARS. The correlation between scales was poor, with a fair qualitative concordance to determine the presence/absence of LARS and a slight qualitative concordance to determine the degree of the intensity. The quantitative concordance was poor. CONCLUSION: In the Chilean population, concordance between the LARS and POLARS scores was qualitatively fair to determine the presence/absence of the disease and qualitatively slight to determine the degree of intensity. We do not suggest using the POLARS score in the perioperative period in the Chilean population deliberately, as the score may help to determine the presence/absence of LARS but cannot determine its degree of intensity. Additional evaluations are required to determine the factors contributing to the degree of agreement between the scales.

Complete mesocolic excision versus standard resection for colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative safety and an evaluation of the use of a robotic approach.

PURPOSE: Complete mesocolic excision (CME) has been associated with improved oncological outcomes in treatment of colon cancer. However, widespread adoption is limited partly because of the technical complexity and perceived risks of the approach. The aim of out study was to evaluate the safety of CME compared to standard resection and to compare robotic versus laparoscopic approaches. METHODS: Two parallel searches were undertaken in MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases 12 December 2021. The first was to evaluate IDEAL stage 3 evidence to compare complication rates as a surrogate marker of perioperative safety between CME and standard resection. The second independent search compared lymph node yield and survival outcomes between minimally invasive approaches. RESULTS: There were four randomized control trials (n = 1422) comparing CME to standard resection, and three studies comparing laparoscopic (n = 164) to robotic (n = 161) approaches. Compared to standard resection, CME was associated with a reduction in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher complication rates (3.56% vs. 7.24%, p = 0.002), reduced blood loss (113.1 ml vs. 137.6 ml, p < 0.0001) and greater mean lymph node harvest (25.6 vs. 20.9 nodes, p = 0.001). Between the robotic and laparoscopic groups, there were no significant differences in complication rates, blood loss, lymph node yield, 5-year disease-free survival (OR 1.05, p = 0.87) and overall survival (OR 0.83, p = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated improved safety with CME. There was no difference in safety or survival outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic CME. The advantage of a robotic approach may lie in the reduced learning curve and an increased penetration of minimally invasive approach to CME. Further studies are required to explore this. PROSPERO ID: CRD42021287065.