The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland guideline on the management of anal fissure.

AIM: The management of anal fissure: ACPGBI position statement was written 15 years ago. [KLR Cross et al., Colorectal Dis, 2008]. Our aim was to update the guideline and provide recommendations on the most effective treatment for patients with anal fissures utilising a multidisciplinary, rigorous guideline methodology. METHODS: The development process consisted of six phases. In phase 1 we defined the scope of the guideline. The patient population included patients with acute and chronic anal fissure. The target group was all practitioners (primary and secondary care) treating patients with fissures and, in addition, healthcare workers and patients who desired information regarding fissure management. In phase 2 we formed a guideline development group (GDG) including a methodologist. In phase 3 review questions were formulated, using a reversed PICO process, starting with possible recommendations based on the GDG's knowledge. In phase 4 a comprehensive literature search focused on existing systematic reviews addressing each review question, supplemented by more recent studies if appropriate. In phase 5 data were extracted from the included papers and checked by the GDG. If indicated, meta-analysis of systematic review data was updated by the GDG. During phase 6 the GDG members decided what recommendations could be made based on the evidence in the literature and strength of the recommendation was assessed using 'grade'. RESULTS: This guideline is divided into two sections: Primary care which includes (i) diagnosis; (ii) basic treatment; (iii) topical treatment; and secondary care which includes (iv) botulinum toxin therapy; (v) surgical intervention and (vi) special situations (including pregnancy and breast-feeding patients, children, receptive anal intercourse and low-pressure fissures). A total of 23 recommendations were formulated. A new term clinically healed was described by the GDG. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides an up-to-date evidence-based summary of the current knowledge of the management of anal fissure and may serve as a useful guide for clinicians as well as a potential reference for patients.

Sequential assessment of bowel function and anorectal physiology after anterior resection for cancer: a prospective cohort study.

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate changes in bowel function and anorectal physiology (ARP) after anterior resection for colorectal cancer. METHOD: Patients were recruited from November 2006 to September 2008. Cleveland Clinic Incontinence (CCI) scores and stool frequency were determined by patient questionnaires before surgery (t0 ) and at three (t3 ), six (t6 ), nine (t9 ) and 12 (t12 ) months after restoration of intestinal continuity. ARP measurements were recorded at T0 , T3 and T12 . Endoanal ultrasound was performed at T0 and T12 . RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were included. CCI score increased postoperatively then normalized, whereas stool frequency did not change. Patients who had neoadjuvant radiotherapy or a lower anastomosis had increased incontinence and stool frequency in the postoperative period, whereas those with defunctioning stomas or open surgery had increased stool frequency alone. Maximum resting pressure, volume at first urge and maximum rectal tolerance were reduced throughout the postoperative period. Radiotherapy, lower anastomosis and defunctioning stoma (but not operative approach) altered manometric parameters postoperatively. Maximum rectal tolerance correlated with incontinence and first urge with stool frequency. The length of the anterior internal anal sphincter decreased postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Incontinence recovers in the first year after anterior resection. Radiotherapy, lower anastomosis, defunctioning stoma and open surgery have a negative influence on bowel function. ARP may be useful if bowel dysfunction persists beyond 12 months.

Protocol for a multicentre, dual prospective and retrospective cohort study investigating timing of ileostomy closure after anterior resection for rectal cancer: The CLOSurE of Ileostomy Timing (CLOSE-IT) study.

INTRODUCTION: A defunctioning ileostomy is often formed during rectal cancer surgery to reduce the potentially fatal sequelae of anastomotic leak. Once the ileostomy is closed and bowel continuity restored, many patients can suffer poor bowel function, that is, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). It has been suggested that delay to closure can increase incidence of LARS which is known to significantly reduce quality of life. Despite this, within the UK, time to closure of ileostomy is not subject to national targets within the National Health Service and delay to closure exceeds 18 months in one-third of patients. Clinical factors, surgeon and patient preference or service pressures may all impact time to closure, yet to date no study has investigated this. The aim of this UK-wide study is to assess time to ileostomy closure and identify reasons for delays. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A UK-wide multicentre prospective snapshot study, together with retrospective analysis of ileostomy closure through The Dukes' Club Research Collaborative including patients undergoing ileostomy closure in a 3-month period (April to June 2018) and all patients who underwent anterior resection and ileostomy formation over a historical 12-month period (2015). Time to closure and incidence of 'non-closure' will be calculated. Units will be surveyed to determine local clinical and management protocols and barriers to timely closure. Multivariate linear regression analysis will be used to determine factors significantly associated with delay to ileostomy closure. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study approved by the South West-Exeter Research Ethics Committee and the Health Research Authority. Study results will be submitted for presentation at international conferences and for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Results will be presented to and discussed with the patient and public representatives and relevant national bodies to facilitate the development of consensus guidelines on optimum treatment pathways.

Accuracy of integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound compared to defaecatory MRI in females with pelvic floor defaecatory dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE: Defaecatory MRI allows multicompartmental assessment of defaecatory dysfunction but is often inaccessible. Integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound (transperineal, transvaginal, endoanal) may provide a cheap, portable alternative. The accuracy of total pelvic floor ultrasound for anatomical abnormalities when compared with defaecatory MRI was assessed. METHODS: The dynamic images from 68 females who had undergone integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound and defaecatory MRI between 2009 and 2015 were blindly reviewed. The following were recorded: rectocoele, enterocoele, intussusception and cystocoele. RESULTS: There were 26 rectocoeles on MRI (49 rectocoeles on ultrasound), 24 rectocoeles with intussusception on MRI (19 rectocoeles on ultrasound), 23 enterocoeles on MRI (24 enterocoeles on ultrasound) and 49 cystocoeles on MRI (35 cystocoeles on ultrasound). Sensitivity and specificity of total pelvic floor ultrasound were 81% and 33% for rectocoele, 60% and 91% for intussusception, 65% and 80% for enterocoele and 65% and 84% for cystocoele when compared with defaecatory MRI. This gave a negative-predictive value and positive-predictive value of 74% and 43% for rectocoele, 80% and 79% for intussusception, 82% and 63% for enterocoele and 48% and 91% for cystocoele. CONCLUSION: Integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound may serve as a screening tool for pelvic floor defaecatory dysfunction; when normal, defaecatory MRI can be avoided, as rectocoele, intussusception and enterocoele are unlikely to be present. Advances in knowledge: This is the first study to compare integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound with defaecatory MRI. The results support the use of integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound as a screening tool for defaecatory dysfunction.

Laparoscopic staging in selected patients with colorectal liver metastases as a prelude to liver resection.

BACKGROUND: Careful selection of patients with colorectal liver metastases for liver resection should minimize the risk of unnecessary laparotomy due to unresectable disease. The impact of staging laparoscopy with laparoscopic ultrasonography (LapUS) on clinical decision making in selected patients with potentially resectable colorectal liver metastases was evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Staging laparoscopy with or without LapUS was performed in 77 of 415 consecutive patients (19%) with colorectal liver metastases deemed potentially resectable following liver-specific CT and/or MRI scanning. Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data compared clinical outcomes with those in whom laparoscopy had been deferred in favour of laparotomy. RESULTS: Staging laparoscopy was successful in 76 of 77 patients (99%). Adverse events occurred in three patients (4%): bowel injury n=2; late port site metastasis, n=1. Laparoscopic staging identified factors precluding curative resection in 16 patients (21%), thus averting unnecessary laparotomy. Of the 57 patients (74%) staged laparoscopically who underwent surgical exploration, 7 patients (12%) were unresectable and liver resection was achieved in 50 (88%). DISCUSSION: Laparoscopic staging remains useful in detecting occult intra- and extra-hepatic tumour in selected patients with potentially operable colorectal liver metastases.