Major differences in follow-up practice of patients with colorectal cancer; results of a national survey in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The precise content and frequency of follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) is variable and guideline adherence is low. The aim of this study was to assess the view of colorectal surgeons on their local follow-up schedule and to clarify their opinions about risk-stratification and organ preserving therapies. Equally important, adherence to the Dutch national guidelines was determined. METHODS: Colorectal surgeons were invited to complete a web-based survey about the importance and interval of clinical follow-up, CEA monitoring and the use of imaging modalities. Furthermore, the opinions regarding physical examination, risk-stratification, organ preserving strategies, and follow-up setting were assessed. Data were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative analysis methods. RESULTS: A total of 106 colorectal surgeons from 52 general and 5 university hospitals filled in the survey, yielding a hospital response rate of 74% and a surgeon response rate of 42%. The follow-up of patients with CRC was mainly done by surgeons (71%). The majority of the respondents (68%) did not routinely perform physical examination during follow-up of rectal patients. Abdominal ultrasound was the predominant modality used for detection of liver metastases (77%). Chest X-ray was the main modality for detecting lung metastases (69%). During the first year of follow-up, adherence to the minimal guideline recommendations was high (99-100%). The results demonstrate that, within the framework of the guidelines, some respondents applied a more intensive follow-up and others a less intensive schedule. The majority of the respondents (77%) applied one single follow-up imaging schedule for all patients that underwent treatment with curative intent. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch colorectal surgeons' adherence to minimal guideline recommendations was high, but within the guideline framework, opinions differed about the required intensity and content of clinical visits, the interval of CEA monitoring, and the importance and frequency of imaging techniques. This national survey demonstrates current follow-up practice throughout the Netherlands and highlights the follow-up differences of curatively treated patients with CRC.

What are the symptoms of internal rectal prolapse?

AIM: Although high-grade internal rectal prolapse is believed to cause functional symptoms such as obstructed defaecation, little has been published on the exact distribution and frequency of symptoms. The aim of this study was to identify the most common symptoms of patients with high-grade internal rectal prolapse. METHOD: Patients were diagnosed with high-grade prolapse (grade 3 and 4) on proctography using the Oxford Rectal Prolapse Grade. Information from a prospectively collected database was supplemented by a retrospective case note review. RESULTS: Eighty eight patients (94% of them women) were included for analysis. Faecal incontinence (56%) was the most common symptom at presentation. Symptoms related to obstructed defaecation syndrome were the next most common, including incomplete evacuation (45%), straining (34%), digital assistance (34%) and repetitive toilet visits (33%). CONCLUSION: A variety of symptoms may be caused by high-grade internal rectal prolapse Although symptoms of obstructed defaecation were frequent, urge faecal incontinence was the most common.

Enterocoele is a marker of severe pelvic floor weakness.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the relationship between the presence of an enterocoele and grade of rectal prolapse (RP). METHOD: Defaecating proctograms of consecutive patients presenting to the Oxford Pelvic Floor Clinic between January 2004 and November 2008 were analysed. Patients were included if they had full thickness internal (grades 1-4 prolapse) or external RP (grade 5 prolapse). All those included were analysed with regards to the presence of an enterocoele. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy-one patients [322 (87%) women and 49 (23%) men] were found to have a degree of RP. One out of eight (12.5%) patients with grade 1 RP, 10/42 (18.5%) with grade 2 RP, 34/125 (27%) with grade 3 RP, 62/135 (46%) with grade 4 RP and 23/49 (47%) with grade 5 full thickness external RP had an enterocoele present. This was a statistically significant trend (Pearson chi(2) test P < 0.0002). There was a significantly higher proportion of enterocoeles in women [125/322 (39%) than in men (5/49 (10%)] (P < 0.0001) and a higher likelihood of having an enterocoele with advancing age (P < 0.0001). Within the study, there was no significant difference in the proportion of nulliparous and parous women with enterocoeles (P = 0.8); there were a significantly higher proportion of enterocoeles in hysterectomized women (P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Enterocoele is increasingly seen with advancing RP severity. This suggests that the two findings are part of the same pelvic floor process. These data support the hypothesis that enterocoele is a marker of severe pelvic floor weakness. Enterocoele is seen more frequently in females particularly after hysterectomy.

Local gentamicin reduces perineal wound infection after radiotherapy and abdominoperineal resection.

BACKGROUND: Perineal wound complications are frequently observed after abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer, especially in preoperatively irradiated patients. This is the first study to investigate whether local application of gentamicin-impregnated collagen fleece reduces deep perineal wound infection after APR for rectal cancer following short-term radiotherapy. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2007, a consecutive series of 40 patients underwent an APR for rectal cancer after short-course radiotherapy in our hospital. Of these patients, 19 received supplementary application of three reabsorbable gentamicin-impregnated collagen fleece sponges into the sacral cavity before closure of the perineum (group A), and 21 patients underwent primary closure of the perineal wound and served as a control group (group B). All patients received sacral drainage. A superficial perineal wound infection was defined as cellulitis with no evidence of deep tissue infection. A deep perineal wound infection was defined as skin and subcutaneous tissue breakdown with infection extending deep into the subcutaneous tissue or a wound abscess. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable regarding age, sex, tumour stage and level of the tumour. No postoperative mortality was observed in either group. Primary wound healing occurred in 16 patients (84%) in the gentamicin group and 9 patients (43%%) in the control group (p=0.01). The incidences of superficial perineal wound complications were 11% (two patients) in group A who received local application of gentamicin and 29% (six patients) in group B (p=0.15). Six patients (29%) in group B developed a deep infection or wound abscess, resulting in full dehiscence of the wound and sacral cavity. This devastating complication occurred in only one patient (5%) in group A (p=0.05). In most patients deep perineal wound infection was treated with vacuum therapy or drainage. The mean hospital stay of the gentamicin group was 15 days and of the control group 25 days (p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this study, we recommend local application of gentamicin in the sacral cavity in patients who undergo abdominoperineal resection after shortterm radiotherapy.