Low Anterior Resection Syndrome. Anatomical Changes after Anterior Rectal Resection.

In this editorial, the authors bring to the attention of surgeons a personal point of view with the intention of offering a series of anatomical arguments to explain the high rate of functional complications following ultralow rectal resections, resections dominated by faecal incontinence of various intensities. Having as a starting point the anatomy of the pelvic floor and the posterior perineum, the authors are concerned with the functional outcomes of the sphincter-saving anterior rectal resection, regarding the low and ultralow resection. Technically, a conservative surgery for low rectal cancer has been currently performed. If 25 years ago the abdominoperineal resection was the gold standard for rectal cancer located under 7cm from the anal verge, nowadays the preservation of the anal canal as a partner for colon anastomosis has been accomplished. Progressively, from a desire to preserve the normal passage of stool into the anal canal, as anatomically and physiologically as possible, the distal limit of resection was lowered to 2-4 cm from the anal verge and ultra-low anastomoses were created, within the anal sphincter complex. The stated goal: keep the oncological safety standard and, at the same time, avoid definitive colostomy. Starting from the normal anatomy of the pelvic floor and the anorectal segment, the authors take a look at the alterations of the visceral, muscular, and nerve structures as a consequence of the low anterior resection and, particularly, the ultralow anterior resection. A significant degree of functional outcomes regarding defecation, with the onset of marked disabilities of anal continence, the major consequence being anal incontinence (30-70%), have been noticed. The authors go under review for the main anatomical and physiological changes that accompany anterior rectal resection. Conclusions: Thus, the following questions arise: what is the lower limit of resection to avoid total fecal incontinence? Is total incontinence a greater handicap than colostomy or is it not? The answers cannot be supported by solid arguments at this time, but the need to initiate future studies dedicated to this problem emerges.

Predictors for temporary stomas non-closure among non-metastatic rectal cancer patients undergoing curative resection: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The primary treatment for non-metastatic rectal cancer is curative resection. However, sphincter-preserving surgery may lead to complications. This study aims to develop a predictive model for stoma non-closure in rectal cancer patients who underwent curative-intent low anterior resection. METHODS: Consecutive patients diagnosed with non-metastatic rectal cancer between January 2005 and December 2017, who underwent low anterior resection, were retrospectively included in the Chang Gung Memorial Foundation Institutional Review Board. A comprehensive evaluation and analysis of potential risk factors linked to stoma non-closure were performed. RESULTS: Out of 956 patients with temporary stomas, 10.3% (n = 103) experienced non-closure primarily due to cancer recurrence and anastomosis-related issues. Through multivariate analysis, several preoperative risk factors significantly associated with stoma non-closure were identified, including advanced age, anastomotic leakage, positive nodal status, high preoperative CEA levels, lower rectal cancer presence, margin involvement, and an eGFR below 30 mL/min/1.73m2. A risk assessment model achieved an AUC of 0.724, with a cutoff of 2.5, 84.5% sensitivity, and 51.4% specificity. Importantly, the non-closure rate could rise to 16.6% when more than two risk factors were present, starkly contrasting the 3.7% non-closure rate observed in cases with a risk score of 2 or below (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Prognostic risk factors associated with the non-closure of a temporary stoma include advanced age, symptomatic anastomotic leakage, nodal status, high CEA levels, margin involvement, and an eGFR below 30 mL/min/1.73m2. Hence, it is crucial for surgeons to evaluate these factors and provide patients with a comprehensive prognosis before undergoing surgical intervention.

Treatment techniques for rectovaginal fistulas after low rectal resection for deep endometriosis.

Endometriosis is a benign gynecologic affection that may lead to major surgeries, such as colorectal resections. Rectovaginal fistulas (RVF) are among the possible complications. When they occur, it is necessary to adapt the repair surgery as best as possible to limit their functional consequences. This video shows three different techniques for correcting RVF after rectal resection for endometriosis, with a combination of perineal surgery and laparoscopy: a mucosal flap, a transanal transection and single stapled anastomosis (TTSS) and a pull through. Supplementary file1 (MP4 469658 KB).

Prophylactic defunctioning stomas improve clinical outcomes of anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resections: An analysis of the US Rectal Cancer Consortium.

PURPOSE: Anastomotic leak (AL) is a complication of low anterior resection (LAR) that results in substantial morbidity. There is immense interest in evaluating immediate postoperative and long-term oncologic outcomes in patients who undergo diverting loop ileostomies (DLI). The purpose of this study is to understand the relationship between fecal diversion, AL, and oncologic outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort study using patient data obtained from the US Rectal Cancer Consortium database compiled from six academic institutions. The study population included patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing LAR. The primary outcome was the incidence of AL among patients who did or did not receive DLI during LAR. Secondary outcomes included risk factors for AL, receipt of adjuvant therapy, 3-year overall survival, and 3-year recurrence. RESULTS: Of 815 patients, 38 (4.7%) suffered AL after LAR. Patients with AL were more likely to be male, have unintentional preoperative weight loss, and are less likely to undergo DLI. On multivariable analysis, DLI remained protective against AL (p < 0.001). Diverted patients were less likely to undergo future surgical procedures including additional ostomy creation, completion proctectomy, or pelvic washout for AL. Subgroup analysis of 456 patients with locally advanced disease showed that DLI was correlated with increased receipt of adjuvant therapy for patients with and without AL on univariate analysis (SHR:1.59; [95% CI 1.19-2.14]; p = 0.002), but significance was not met in multivariate models. CONCLUSION: Lack of DLI and preoperative weight loss was associated with anastomotic leak. Fecal diversion may improve the timely initiation of adjuvant oncologic therapy. The long-term outcomes following routine diverting stomas warrant further study.

Effect of prolonged operative time on short-term outcomes of open vs minimally invasive proctectomy.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive proctectomy (MIP) may offer advantages over open proctectomy (OP). Increased operative times (OTs) are linked to inferior outcomes for various operations; however, the interplay between OT and approach for proctectomy is not well-established. This study aimed to evaluate associations of increasing OT on 30-day morbidity in OP and MIP cohorts. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program Targeted Proctectomy Dataset was used to identify patients undergoing proctectomy. Cases were stratified by open or minimally invasive surgical approach and following propensity score matching between the groups, and OT quartiles were established for each group. Perioperative outcomes were compared among quartiles, and multivariate regression was used to identify factors associated with prolonged OT. RESULTS: The median OT was longer for MIP (271 vs 232 min; P < .01). Although increased OT was associated with higher overall morbidity for both open and minimally invasive approaches, this effect was more pronounced in OP than in MIP (63.2% vs 38.4%, respectively; P < .001). Factors associated with prolonged OT included the procedure performed, male sex, higher body mass index scores, diverting ileostomy, and, in malignant disease, mid or lower and T4 tumors (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: Herein, prolonged OT was associated with worse short-term outcomes for both OP and MIP cases; however, its detrimental effect was more pronounced for open surgery than for minimally invasive surgery. Our data suggested that MIP may offer short-term advantages for demanding cases requiring longer OTs.

Robotic-assisted surgery for left-sided colon and rectal resections is associated with reduction in the postoperative surgical stress response and improved short-term outcomes: a cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing evidence that the use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in colorectal cancer resections is associated with improved short-term outcomes when compared to laparoscopic surgery (LS) or open surgery (OS), possibly through a reduced systemic inflammatory response (SIR). Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) is a sensitive SIR biomarker and its utility in the early identification of post-operative complications has been validated in a variety of surgical procedures. There remains a paucity of studies characterising post-operative SIR in RAS. METHODS: Retrospective study of a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients undergoing OS, LS and RAS for left-sided and rectal cancer in a single high-volume unit. Patient and disease characteristics, post-operative CRP levels, and clinical outcomes were reviewed, and their relationships explored within binary logistic regression and propensity scores matched models. RESULTS: A total of 1031 patients were included (483 OS, 376 LS, and 172 RAS). RAS and LS were associated with lower CRP levels across the first 4 post-operative days (p < 0.001) as well as reduced complications and length of stay compared to OS in unadjusted analyses. In binary logistic regression models, RAS was independently associated with lower CRP levels at Day 3 post-operatively (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21-0.59, p < 0.001) and a reduction in the rate of all complications (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26-0.56, p < 0.001) and major complications (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.26-0.95, p = 0.036). Within a propensity scores matched model comparing LS versus RAS specifically, RAS was associated with lower post-operative CRP levels in the first two post-operative days, a lower proportion of patients with a CRP ≥ 150 mg/L at Day 3 (20.9% versus 30.5%, p = 0.036) and a lower rate of all complications (34.7% versus 46.7%, p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: The present observational study shows that an RAS approach was associated with lower postoperative SIR, and a better postoperative complications profile.

Long-term Changes in Low Anterior Resection Syndrome in Survivors of Rectal Cancer: Longitudinal Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative bowel dysfunction, also known as low anterior resection syndrome, is common in rectal cancer survivors and significantly impacts quality of life. Although long-term longitudinal follow-up is lacking, improvement of the syndrome is commonly believed to happen only within the first 2 years. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to depict the longitudinal evolvement of low anterior resection syndrome beyond 3 years and explore factors associated with changes. DESIGN: Longitudinal long-term follow-ups were performed for the single center with the largest cohort within the multicenter FOWARC randomized controlled trial. SETTING: A quaternary referral center. PATIENTS: Individuals diagnosed with rectal cancer who received long-course neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, followed by sphincter-preserving radical proctectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Change of low anterior resection syndrome score and stoma status. RESULTS: Of the 220 patients responding to the first follow-up at a median of 39 months, 178 (80.9%) responded to the second follow-up after a median of 83 months. During this interval, the mean low anterior resection syndrome score improved from 29.5 (95% CI, 28.3-30.7) to 18.6 (95% CI, 16.6-20.6). Fifty-six (31.5%) patients reported improvement from major to no/minor severity, and 6 (3.4%) patients had new stomas because of severe bowel dysfunction. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy ( p = 0.016) was independently and negatively associated with improvement of the score. LIMITATIONS: Loss of follow-up during the long-term follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS: Most rectal cancer survivors with low anterior resection syndrome continued to improve beyond 3 years after proctectomy. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was negatively associated with long-term improvement of low anterior resection syndrome. See Video Abstract . CAMBIO A LARGO PLAZO DEL SNDROME DE RESECCIN ANTERIOR BAJA EN SUPERVIVIENTES DE CNCER DE RECTO SEGUIMIENTO LONGITUDINAL DE UN ENSAYO CONTROLADO ALEATORIO: ANTECEDENTES:La disfunción intestinal posoperatoria, también conocida como síndrome de resección anterior baja, es común en los sobrevivientes de cáncer de recto y afecta significativamente la calidad de vida. Aunque falta un seguimiento longitudinal a largo plazo, comúnmente se cree que la mejoría del síndrome ocurre sólo dentro de los primeros dos años.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tiene como objetivo representar la evolución longitudinal del síndrome de resección anterior baja más allá de los 3 años y explora los factores asociados con el cambio.DISEÑO:Se realizaron seguimientos longitudinales a largo plazo para el único centro con la cohorte más grande dentro del ensayo controlado aleatorio multicéntrico FOWARC.AJUSTE:Un centro de referencia cuaternario.PACIENTES:Individuos diagnosticados con cáncer de recto que recibieron quimioterapia neoadyuvante de larga duración o quimiorradioterapia, seguida de proctectomía radical con preservación del esfínter.PRINCIPALES MEDICIONES DE RESULTADO:Cambio en la puntuación del síndrome de resección anterior baja y el estado del estoma.RESULTADOS:De los 220 pacientes que respondieron al primer seguimiento con una mediana de 39 meses, 178 (80,9%) respondieron al segundo seguimiento después de una mediana de 83 meses. Durante el intervalo, la puntuación media del síndrome de resección anterior baja mejoró de 29,5 (intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 28,3-30,7) a 18,6 (IC del 95%: 16,6-20,6). 56 (31,5%) pacientes informaron una mejoría de mayor a ninguna gravedad, y 6 (3,4%) pacientes tuvieron un nuevo estoma debido a una disfunción intestinal grave. La radiación neoadyuvante (p = 0,016) se asoció de forma independiente y negativa con la mejora de la puntuación.LIMITACIONES:Pérdida de seguimiento durante los seguimientos a largo plazo.CONCLUSIÓN:La mayoría de los sobrevivientes de cáncer de recto con síndrome de resección anterior baja continuaron mejorando más allá de los 3 años después de la proctectomía. La radiación neoadyuvante se asoció negativamente con la mejora a largo plazo del síndrome de resección anterior baja. (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado ).

Management of acute and chronic pelvic sepsis after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer-a 10-year experience of a national referral centre.

AIM: Uncontrolled pelvic sepsis following rectal cancer surgery may lead to dramatic consequences with significant impact on patients' quality of life. The aim of this retrospective observational study is to evaluate management of pelvic sepsis after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer at a national referral centre. METHOD: Referred patients with acute or chronic pelvic sepsis after sphincter preserving rectal cancer resection, with the year of referral between 2010 and 2014 (A) or between 2015 and 2020 (B), were included. The main outcome was control of pelvic sepsis at the end of follow-up, with healed anastomosis with restored faecal stream (RFS) as co-primary outcome. RESULTS: In total 136 patients were included: 49 in group A and 87 in group B. After a median follow-up of 82 months (interquartile range 35-100) in group A and 42 months (interquartile range 22-60) in group B, control of pelvic sepsis was achieved in all patients who received endoscopic vacuum assisted surgical closure (7/7 and 2/2), in 91% (19/21) and 89% (31/35) of patients who received redo anastomosis (P = 1.000) and in 100% (18/18) and 95% (41/43) of patients who received intersphincteric resection (P = 1.000), respectively. Restorative procedures resulted in a healed anastomosis with RFS in 61% (17/28) of patients in group A and 68% (25/37) of patients in group B (P = 0.567). CONCLUSION: High rates of success can be achieved with surgical salvage of pelvic sepsis in a dedicated tertiary referral centre, without significant differences over time. In well selected and motivated patients a healed anastomosis with RFS can be achieved in the majority.

Patient reported outcomes after multivisceral resection for advanced rectal cancers in female patients.

INTRODUCTION: Multivisceral resections for rectal cancer can lead to long-term functional disturbances. This study aims to evaluate the quality-of-life outcomes in female patients who underwent multivisceral resection for rectal cancer, specifically focusing on urinary and sexual functions. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on female patients who underwent multivisceral rectal resections. Quality of life was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-CR29. RESULTS: Out of 198 female patients that underwent multivisceral resections, 69 were assessable for functional outcomes. The uterus was removed in 42 patients (61%), and the posterior vaginal wall in 34 (49%). A vaginal reconstructive procedure was carried out in 30% (21 patients). Patients reported the most troubles with urinary frequency (mean: 69.6; SD: 9.9), hair loss (mean: 64.7; SD: 13.9), pain during intercourse (mean: 44; SD: 40.7), and bowel frequency (mean: 36.9; SD: -10.7) in this order. Amongst the functional scales, anxiety about future health (mean: 42.5; SD: -018.9) and interest in sex (mean: 57.2; SD: 33.2) scored the lowest. CONCLUSION: Multivisceral rectal resections in female patients are associated with physical and psychosocial changes resulting in urinary and bowel complaints, anxiety about future health, poor sexual health, and pain.

Outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Transanal dissection is increasingly used in laparoscopic surgery for total mesorectal excision of lower rectal cancers. Several studies compared outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection, yet there is a paucity of high-quality evidence. This meta-analysis aimed to provide a pooled comparative analysis of outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection based on evidence from randomized controlled trials. METHODS: This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2022-compliant systematic review of randomized controlled trials compared laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through March 2023. The Medical Subject Headings terms used in the search were Rectal neoplasms, Proctectomy, Laparoscopy, and Transanal. The main outcomes included operative and pathologic outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias version 2 tool, and certainty of the evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The primary study outcome was conversion to open surgery. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials (1,339 patients; median age 61.2 years) were included; 671 patients underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection, and 668 underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision without transanal dissection. Both groups were similar in age, body mass index, and disease stage, but the laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection group had a higher male-to-female ratio, received neoadjuvant therapy and had a hand-sewn anastomosis more often. Patients who underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection had lower conversion rates (odds ratio = 0.179; P = .001), a higher likelihood of achieving complete total mesorectal excision (odds ratio = 1.435; P = .025), and fewer harvested lymph nodes (weighted mean difference = -1.926; P = .035). The groups had similar operative times (weighted mean difference = -3.476; P = .398), total complications (odds ratio = 0.94; P = .665), major complications (odds ratio = 1.112; P = .66), anastomotic leak (odds ratio = 0.67; P = .432), positive circumferential resection margin (odds ratio = 0.549; P = .155), and positive distal margins (odds ratio = 0.559; P = .171). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection was associated with lower odds of conversion to open surgery, greater likelihood of achieving complete total mesorectal excision, and fewer harvested lymph nodes than laparoscopic total mesorectal excision without transanal dissection.

Outcomes of Early Versus Standard Closure of Diverting Ileostomy After Proctectomy: Meta-analysis and Meta-regression Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare outcomes of early and standard closure of diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) after proctectomy and determine risk factors for anastomotic leak (AL) and complications. BACKGROUND: Formation of DLI has been a routine practice after proctectomy to decrease the incidence and potential adverse sequela of AL. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared outcomes of early versus standard closure of DLI after proctectomy. Main outcome measures were postoperative complications, AL, ileus, surgical site infection, reoperation, readmission, and hospital stay following DLI closure. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs (932 patients; 57% male) were included. Early closure group included 474 patients and standard closure 458 patients. Early closure was associated with higher odds of AL [odds ratio (OR): 2.315, P =0.013] and similar odds of complications (OR: 1.103, P =0.667), ileus (OR: 1.307, P =0.438), surgical site infection (OR: 1.668, P =0.079), reoperation (OR: 1.896, P =0.062), and readmission (OR: 3.431, P =0.206). Hospital stay was similar (weighted mean difference: 1.054, P =0.237). Early closure had higher odds of AL than standard closure when early closure was done ≤2 weeks (OR: 2.12, P =0.047) but not within 3 to 4 weeks (OR: 2.98, P =0.107). Factors significantly associated with complications after early closure were diabetes mellitus, smoking, and closure of DLI ≤2 weeks, whereas factors associated with AL were ≥ American Society of Anesthesiologists II classification and diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS: Early closure of DLI after proctectomy has a higher risk of AL, particularly within 2 weeks of DLI formation. On the basis of this study, routine early ileostomy closure cannot be recommended.

Modified Approach for Extraperitoneal Colostomy Creation in Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection.

BACKGROUND: Parastomal hernia is a major long-term complication after abdominoperineal resection. Extraperitoneal colostomy has been proposed as an effective step for parastomal hernia prevention, but it has not been widely used as it is technically demanding and time-consuming. We proposed a modified approach for extraperitoneal colostomy creation by entering the extraperitoneal space through the arcuate line of the posterior rectus sheath. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, difficulty, and efficacy of long-term parastomal hernia prevention of the modified approach for extraperitoneal colostomy creation compared with the conventional transperitoneal colostomy approach. DESIGN: This was a retrospective evaluation of a surgical and video database. SETTINGS: This was a single-institution retrospective study. PATIENTS: Clinical data of 74 patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection surgery from January 2019 to January 2020 in the Department of General Surgery, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, were retrospectively reviewed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline characteristics, time required for colostomy creation (from skin incision to colostomy maturation), perioperative complications, and long-term colostomy-related complications were compared. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics did not differ between the 2 approaches. The BMI level ranged from 19.5 to 29.4 for patients undergoing extraperitoneal approach. Time required for colostomy creation median [interquartile range], (22 [21-25] minutes for extraperitoneal vs 23 [21-25] minutes for transperitoneal, p = 0.861) were comparable between the 2 approaches. The cumulative incidence of parastomal hernia was significantly greater with transperitoneal colostomy than extraperitoneal colostomy at 2 and 3 years postoperatively (16.2% vs 0%, p = 0.025, and 21.6% vs 0%, p = 0.005). The remaining perioperative complications and long-term colostomy-related complications did not differ between the 2 approaches. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its retrospective design and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: The modified approach for extraperitoneal colostomy creation is safe, technically simple, and effective for long-term parastomal hernia prevention in patients with a BMI of 19.5 to 29.4.

Uterine retroversion and gluteal transposition flap for postoperative perineal evisceration after extralevator abdominoperineal resection.

Anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) is the most common histological subtype of malignant tumor affecting the anal canal. Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the first-line treatment in nearly all cases, ensuring complete clinical response in up to 80% of patients. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) is typically reserved as salvage therapy in those patients with persistent or recurrent tumor after CRT. In locally advanced tumors, an extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE), which entails excision of the anal canal and levator muscles, might be indicated to obtain negative resection margins. In this setting, the combination of highly irradiated tissue and large surgical defect increases the risk of developing postoperative perineal wound complications. One of the most dreadful complications is perineal evisceration (PE), which requires immediate surgical treatment to avoid irreversibile organ damage. Different techniques have been described to prevent perineal complications after ELAPE, although none of them have reached consensus. In this technical note, we present a case of PE after ELAPE performed for a recurrent ASCC. Perineal evisceration was approached by combining a uterine retroversion with a gluteal transposition flap to obtain wound healing and reinforcement of the pelvic floor at once, when a mesh placement is not recommended.

Risk factors for ischemia/necrosis of the colonic stump after proctectomy and delayed coloanal anastomosis.

INTRODUCTION: Delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) is a two-stage procedure. DCAA has been increasingly reused in recent years in the management of rectal cancer. Such increased use of DCAA has highlighted the complications associated with this procedure. We aimed to evaluate the risk and risk factors of ischemia/necrosis of the colonic stump between the two stages of DCAA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent a proctectomy with a DCAA were included in this retrospective single-centre study from November 2012 to June 2022. Two groups of patients were defined: patients with a well vascularized colonic stump (well vascularized group) and those who experienced ischemia or necrosis of the colonic stump (ischemic group). The primary endpoint was the rate of ischemia or necrosis of the colonic stump and an evaluation of the associated risk factors. RESULTS: During the study period, 43 patients underwent DCAA. Amongst them, 32 (75%) had a well-vascularized colonic stump (well-vascularized group) and 11 (25%) ischemia of the colonic stump (ischemic group). Relative to patients in the well-vascularized group, those in the ischemic group were more often men (81.8% vs 40.6%, p = 0.034), had a higher BMI (29.2 kg/m2 vs 25.7 kg/m2, p = 0.03), were more frequently diabetic (63.6% vs 21.9%, p = 0.01) and more frequently had had preoperative radiotherapy (100% vs 53.1%, p = 0.008). On the preoperative CT scan, the interspinous diameter was shorter in the ischemic group (9.4 ± 1.01 cm vs 10.6 ± 1.01 cm, p = 0.001), the intertuberosity diameter was shorter (9.2 ± 1.18 cm vs 11.9 ± 1.18 cm, p < 0.0001), and the length of the anal canal was longer (31.9 ± 3 mm vs 27.4 ± 3.2 mm, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study highlights clear risk factors for ischemia/necrosis of the colonic stump after proctectomy with DCAA.

The role of transanal compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (taTME vs. lapTME) for the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer in obese patients: outcomes of a multicenter propensity-matched analysis.

To compare the rate of sphincter-saving interventions between transanal and laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision in this particular group of patients. A multicentre observational study was conducted using a prospective database, including patients diagnosed with rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, who underwent minimally invasive elective surgery over a 5-year period. Exclusion criteria were (1) sphincter and/or puborectalis invasion; (2) multi-visceral resections; (3) palliative surgeries. The study population was divided into two groups according to the intervention: transanal or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. The primary outcome was the rate of sphincter-saving surgery. Secondary outcomes included conversion, postoperative complications, quality of the specimen, and survival. A total of 93 patients were included; 40 (43%) transanal total mesorectal excision were compared to 53 (57%) laparoscopic. In addition, 35 cases of transanal approach were case-matched with an equal number of laparoscopic approaches, based on gender, tumor's height, and neoadjuvant therapy. In both groups, 43% of the patients had low rectal cancer; however, the rate of sphincter-saving surgery was significantly higher in the transanal group (97% vs. 71%, p = 0.003). There were no conversions to open surgery in the transanal group, compared to 2 cases in the laparoscopic group (6%) (p = 0.246). The percentage of major complications was similar, including the rate of anastomotic leakage (10% transanal vs. 19% laparoscopic, p = 0.835). In our experience, higher percentages of sphincter-saving procedures and lower conversion rates are potential benefits of using the transanal approach in a complex surgical setting population of obese patients with mid-low rectal tumors when compared to laparoscopic.

The impact of restorative proctectomy versus permanent colostomy on health-related quality of life after rectal cancer surgery using the patient-generated index.

BACKGROUND: The impact of bowel dysfunction versus colostomy on quality of life after rectal cancer surgery is poorly understood. BACKGROUND: To evaluate the quality of life after rectal cancer surgery in patients with colostomy versus restorative proctectomy. METHODS: A mixed-methods study measuring quality of life using the Patient-Generated Index, patients were asked to list up to 5 areas of their life affected by their surgery. Areas were then weighted according to patients' preferences for improvement to generate a score from 0-100. The areas reported by patients were linked to the International Classification of Functioning for content analysis. Bowel dysfunction was measured using the low anterior resection syndrome score, and patients were then grouped according to (1) colostomy, (2) no/minor, or (3) major low anterior resection syndrome. Quality of life was compared between groups. RESULTS: Overall, 121 patients were included (colostomy n = 39, restorative proctectomy n = 82). There were no differences in demographics, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, or time to follow-up between groups. In the restorative proctectomy group, 53% had no/minor, and 47% had major low anterior resection syndrome. Overall, patients with colostomy had significantly lower quality-of-life scores than those with restorative proctectomy. However, patients with major low anterior resection syndrome scored similarly to those with colostomy. On content analysis, patients with colostomies reported more problems with sexual function, body image, and sports. Patients with restorative proctectomy reported more problems with sleep, using transportation, and taking care of themselves. CONCLUSION: Colostomy has a more detrimental impact on quality of life than restorative proctectomy. However, bowel dysfunction severity is important to consider. The patient experience between treatments differs.

Closure of pelvic peritoneum with bladder peritoneum flap reconstruction after laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision: A prospective stage II study.

BACKGROUND: Extralevator abdominoperineal resection (ELAPE) has increased perineal wound complications due to the extended resection area. Closure of the pelvic peritoneum (CPP) may exclude the abdominal content from descending into the pelvic cavity and reduce the incidence of perineal complications after ELAPE. We have previously introduced bladder peritoneum flap reconstruction (BLAPER) as a novel method for patients in whom traditional CPP is not possible. The aim of the present study was to report the development and preliminary outcomes of BLAPER. METHODS: This is a prospective single-arm study at the development and exploration phase and fulfills the IDEAL framework stage II. Ultralow rectal cancer patients with rigid pelvis who underwent ELAPE with BLAPER were enrolled. Primary outcomes were intraoperative complications and postoperative complications within 1 month after surgery. RESULTS: Among 27 patients included, the overall success rate of BLAPER was 96.3% (26/27). Indocyanine green fluorescence imaging and antiadhesive barrier placement were introduced to improve the BLAPER technique. The incidence of major pelvic wound complications was 7.7%. No patient who underwent BLAPER has suffered small bowel obstruction (SBO), presence of small bowel in the retrourogenital space, or perineal hernia (PH). CONCLUSIONS: BLAPER is safe and may prevent the small bowel from descending into the retrourogenital space and subsequently developing PH and SBO without increasing the intraoperative and postoperative complications. BLAPER may serve as an option when the primary suture of the pelvic peritoneum is not feasible.

Assessment of Risk Factors for Iatrogenic Genitourinary Injuries During a Proctectomy.

BACKGROUND: It is critical to avoid iatrogenic injuries affecting genitourinary organs in order to prevent postoperative urinary or sexual dysfunction, which lead to lengthier recovery and possibly reoperation. METHODS: Using the 2016-2019 American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Targeted Proctectomy Database, we collated 2577 patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer who underwent a laparoscopic or open proctectomy. Univariate analysis was used to identify differences in perioperative factors and genitourinary injuries (GUIs) between operative approaches, and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent risk factors for sustaining an intraoperative GUI. RESULTS: The rates of preoperative comorbidities were significantly higher among patients who received an open operation. The proportion of GUIs was also significantly higher in this patient population. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that patients who underwent a laparoscopic proctectomy were associated with a 51.4% lower risk of sustaining a GUI. Furthermore, >10% body weight loss in the past 6 months and ASA class 3 status were independently associated with a higher risk of GUI regardless of operation type. CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo a laparoscopic proctectomy are associated with a lower risk of GUI. On the other hand, patients with >10% body weight loss and ASA class 3: Severe Systemic Disease were associated with a higher risk of GUI.

Malnutrition and visceral obesity predicted adverse short-term and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing proctectomy for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have explored the relationship between visceral obesity and malnutrition. Therefore, this study has aimed to investigate the association between them in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients with rectal cancer who underwent proctectomy were included. Malnutrition was defined according to the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM). Visceral obesity was measured using computed tomography (CT). The patients were classified into four groups according to the presence of malnutrition or visceral obesity. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate risk factors for postoperative complications. Univariate and multivariate cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate the risk factors for overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests were performed for the four groups. RESULTS: This study enrolled 624 patients. 204 (32.7%) patients were included in the well-nourished non-visceral obesity (WN) group, 264 (42.3%) patients were included in the well-nourished visceral obesity (WO) group, 114 (18.3%) patients were included in the malnourished non-visceral obesity (MN) group, and 42 (6.7%) patients were included in the malnourished visceral obesity (MO) group. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), MN, and MO were associated with postoperative complications. In the multivariate cox regression analysis, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, tumor differentiation, tumor node metastasis (TNM), and MO were associated with worsened OS and CSS. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the combination of visceral obesity and malnutrition resulted in higher postoperative complication and mortality rates and was a good indicator of poor prognosis in patients with rectal cancer.