Preliminary Report From the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium: Large-Scale Data Collection Through Quality Improvement Initiatives to Provide Data on Functional Outcomes After Rectal Prolapse Repair.

BACKGROUND: The surgical management of rectal prolapse is constantly evolving, yet numerous clinical trials and meta-analyses studying operative approaches have failed to make meaningful conclusions. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report on preliminary data captured during a large-scale quality improvement initiative to measure and improve function in patients undergoing rectal prolapse repair. DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected surgical quality improvement data. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at 14 tertiary centers specializing in pelvic floor disorders from 2017 to 2019. PATIENTS: A total of 181 consecutive patients undergoing external rectal prolapse repair were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative and 3-month postoperative Wexner incontinence score and Altomare obstructed defecation score were measured. RESULTS: The cohort included 112 patients undergoing abdominal surgery (71 suture rectopexy/56% minimally invasive, 41 ventral rectopexy/93% minimally invasive). Those offered perineal approaches (n = 68) were older (median age, 75 vs 62 y; p < 0.01) and had more comorbidities (ASA 3-4: 51% vs 24%; p < 0.01) but also reported higher preintervention rates of fecal incontinence (Wexner 11.4 ± 6.4 vs 8.6 ± 5.8; p < 0.01). Patients undergoing perineal procedures had similar incremental improvements in function after surgery as patients undergoing abdominal repair (change in Wexner, -2.6 ± 6.4 vs -3.1 ± 5.6, p = 0.6; change in Altomare, -2.9 ± 4.6 vs -2.7 ± 4.9, p = 0.8). Similarly, patients undergoing posterior suture rectopexy and ventral mesh rectopexy had similar incremental improvements in overall scores; however, patients undergoing ventral mesh rectopexy had a higher decrease in the need to use pads after surgery. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective data analysis and 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Functional outcomes improved in all of the patients undergoing prolapse surgery. Larger cohorts are necessary to show superiority among surgical procedures. Quality improvement methods may allow for systematic yet practical acquisition of information and data analysis. We call for the creation of a robust database to benefit this patient population. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B581. REPORTE PRELIMINAR DEL CONSORCIO DE TRASTORNOS DEL PISO PLVICO RECOLECCIN DE DATOS A GRAN ESCALA MEDIANTE INICIATIVAS DE MEJORAMIENTO DE LA CALIDAD PARA PROPORCIONAR INFORMACIN SOBRE LOS RESULTADOS FUNCIONALES: ANTECEDENTES:El tratamiento quirúrgico del prolapso rectal está evolucionando constantemente, sin embargo, numerosos estudios clínicos y metaanálisis que evalúan los tratamientos quirúrgicos no han logrado demostrar conclusiones significativas.OBJETIVO:Reportar datos preliminares obtenidos a gran escala durante una iniciativa de mejoramiento de la calidad para medir y mejorar la función en pacientes sometidos a reparación de prolapso rectal.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de datos recolectados prospectivamente de mejoramiento de la calidad quirúrgica.ENTORNO CLINICO:Este estudio se realizó en 14 centros terciarios especializados en trastornos del piso pélvico del 2017 al 2019.PACIENTES:Un total de 181 pacientes consecutivos sometidos a reparación de prolapso rectal externo.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Escala de incontinencia de Wexner y de defecación obstruida de Altomare preoperatoria y tres meses postoperatoria.RESULTADOS:El cohorte incluyó 112 pacientes sometidos a cirugía abdominal (71 rectopexia con sutura / 56% minimally invasive, 41 rectopexia ventral / 93% minimally invasive). Aquellos a los que se les realizaron abordajes perineales (n = 68) eran mayores (edad media de 75 vs. 62, p <0,01) y tenían mayorcomorbilidades (ASA 3-4: 51% vs. 24%, p <0,01), además reportaron una mayor tasa de incontinencia fecal previo a la intervención (Wexner 11,4 ± 6,4 vs. 8,6 +/- 5,8, p <0,01). Posterior a la cirugía, los pacientes sometidos a procedimientos perineales tuvieron mejoría progresiva en la función similar que los pacientes sometidos a reparación abdominal (cambio en Wexner -2,6 ± 6,4 vs. -3,1 ± 5,6, p = 0,6; cambio en Altomare -2,9 ± 4,6 vs. -2,7 ± 4,9, p = 0,8). De manera similar, los pacientes con rectopexia posterior con sutura y rectopexia ventral con malla tuvieron mejoría progresiva similares en las escalas generales; no obstante, pacientes con rectopexia ventral con malla tuvieron una mayor disminución en la necesidad de usar paños protectores después de la cirugía.LIMITACIONES:Análisis de datos retrospectivo y seguimiento de tres meses.CONCLUSIONES:Los resultados funcionales mejoraron en todos los pacientes sometidos a cirugía de prolapso. Se necesitan cohortes más grandes para demostrar superioridad entre los procedimientos quirúrgicos. Métodos de mejoramiento de la calidad pueden permitir la adquisición sistemática, pero práctica de información y análisis de datos. Hacemos un llamado para la creación de una base de datos sólida para beneficiar a esta población de pacientes. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B581. (Traducción- Dr Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Bowel Function After J-Pouch May Be More Complex Than Previously Appreciated: A Comprehensive Analysis to Highlight Existing Knowledge Gaps.

BACKGROUND: Functional outcomes following J-pouch for ulcerative colitis have been studied, but lack standardization in which symptoms are reported. Furthermore, the selection of symptoms studied has not been patient centered. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to utilize a validated bowel function survey to determine which symptoms are present after J-pouch creation, and whether patients display a functional profile similar to low anterior resection syndrome. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained single-center database. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at the colorectal surgery center of a tertiary care academic hospital PATIENTS:: Included were 159 patients with J-pouch, ≥6 months after ileostomy reversal. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were individual answers to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Bowel Function Instrument. The original Bowel Function Instrument validation cohort was used as an historical comparison (n = 127). RESULTS: The mean total Bowel Function Instrument score for the J-pouch cohort was 59.9 ± 9.7 compared with a reported average score of 63.7 ± 11.6 for patients with low anterior resection in the validation cohort (p < 0.001), indicating worse bowel function in patients with J-pouch. When evaluating the Bowel Function Instrument subscales, patients with J-pouch reported frequency subscale scores of 18.2 ± 3.8, diet scores of 12.2 ± 3.8, and urgency scores of 15.9 ± 3.7, compared with 21.7 ± 4.5 (p < 0.001), 14.1 ± 3.7 (p < 0.001), and 15.0 ± 3.9 (p = 0.04) for patients undergoing rectal resection. Furthermore, 90.4% of patients with J-pouch state that they are sometimes, rarely, or never able to wait 15 minutes to get to the toilet. In addition, 56.4% of patients report having another bowel movement within 15 minutes of the last bowel movement, sometimes, always, or most of the time, and 50.6% of patients say that they sometimes, rarely, or never feel like their bowels have been totally emptied after a bowel movement. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited because it took place at a single center and the Bowel Function Instrument was only validated for patients undergoing rectal resection. CONCLUSIONS: Patients that undergo J-pouch surgery exhibit a constellation of bowel function symptoms that is more complex than fecal incontinence and frequency alone, despite the focus on these functional outcomes in the literature. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B73. LA FUNCIÓN INTESTINAL DESPUÉS DE LA BOLSA EN J PUEDE SER MÁS COMPLEJA DE LO QUE SE APRECIABA ANTERIORMENTE: UN ANÁLISIS EXHAUSTIVO PARA RESALTAR LAS BRECHAS DE CONOCIMIENTO EXISTENTES: Se han estudiado los resultados funcionales después de la bolsa en J para la colitis ulcerosa, pero carecen de estandarización en la que se informen los síntomas. Además, la selección de los síntomas estudiados no se ha centrado en el paciente.Utilizar una encuesta validada de la función intestinal para determinar qué síntomas están presentes después de la bolsa en J y si los pacientes muestran un perfil funcional similar al síndrome de resección anterior baja.Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos de un solo centro mantenida prospectivamente.Centro de cirugía colorrectal de un hospital académico de atención terciaria.159 pacientes con bolsa en J, ≥6 meses después de la reversión de ileostomía.Instrumento para la función intestinal del "Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center"; cohorte de validación original de instrumentos de función intestinal utilizada como comparación histórica (n = 127).La puntuación media total del instrumento de función intestinal para la cohorte de bolsa J fue 59.9 ± 9.7 en comparación con un puntaje promedio reportado de 63.7 ± 11.6 para pacientes con resección anterior baja en la cohorte de validación (p < 0.001), lo que indica peor función intestinal en pacientes con bolsa en J. Al evaluar las subescalas del instrumento de función intestinal, los pacientes con bolsa en J informaron puntuaciones de subescala de frecuencia de 18.2 ± 3.8, puntuaciones de dieta de 12.2 ± 3.8 y puntuaciones de urgencia de 15.9 ± 3.7, en comparación con 21.7 ± 4.5 (p < 0.001), 14.1 ± 3.7 (p < 0.001) y 15.0 ± 3.9 (p = 0.04) respectivamente para pacientes con resección rectal. Además, el 90.4% de los pacientes con bolsa en J afirman que a veces, rara vez o nunca pueden esperar 15 minutos para llegar al baño. Además, el 56.4% de los pacientes reportan haber tenido otra evacuación intestinal dentro de los 15 minutos posteriores a la última evacuación intestinal, a veces, siempre o la mayor parte del tiempo, y el 50.6% de los pacientes dicen que a veces, rara vez o nunca sienten que sus intestinos han sido vaciados totalmente después de una evacuación intestinal.Estudio en un solo centro, instrumento de función intestinal validado solo para pacientes con resección rectalLos pacientes que se someten a una bolsa en J exhiben una constelación de síntomas de la función intestinal que es más compleja que la incontinencia fecal y la frecuencia sola, a pesar del enfoque en estos resultados funcionales en la literatura.Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B73. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Federico Hagerman).

Comparable perioperative outcomes, long-term outcomes, and quality of life in a retrospective analysis of ulcerative colitis patients following 2-stage versus 3-stage proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis.

PURPOSE: Many surgeons assume 3-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is safer than 2-stage IPAA in patients with active ulcerative colitis (UC), although recent data suggest outcomes are comparable. This study aimed to compare perioperative complications, late complications, and functional outcomes after 2- versus 3-stage IPAA in patients with active UC. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent 2- or 3-stage IPAA for active UC from 2000 to 2015 in a high-volume institution. Patients completed quality-of-life surveys 6 months following ileostomy reversal. Perioperative and late complications were recorded. Outcomes were compared with the Fisher exact test, and multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: We identified 212 patients who underwent 2- or 3-stage IPAA for active UC, of whom 157 patients (74.1%) underwent 2-stage procedures and 55 (25.9%) underwent 3-stage procedures. More patients undergoing 2-stage procedures were taking immunomodulators preoperatively (46.3% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.01), but there was no difference in use of steroids (p = 0.09) or biologic agents (p = 0.85). Three-stage procedures were more likely to be urgent (78.6% vs. 30.2%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in perioperative complications (p = 0.50), anastomotic leak (p = 0.94), pouchitis (p = 0.45), pouch failure (p = 0.46), perceived quality of life (p = 0.68), number of bowel movements per day (p = 0.27), or sexual satisfaction (p = 0.21) between the 2- and 3-stage groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing 2-stage compared to 3-stage IPAA for active ulcerative colitis have comparable outcomes and quality of life following ileostomy reversal. Two-stage IPAA appears to be safe and appropriate, even in high-risk patients.

What Is the Risk of Anal Carcinoma in Patients With Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia III?

BACKGROUND: The risk of anal carcinoma after previous diagnosis of anal intraepithelial neoplasia III is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the risk of anal carcinoma in patients with anal intraepithelial neoplasia III and to identify predictors for subsequent malignancy. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry (1973-2014). SETTING: The study was composed of population-based cancer registries from the United States. PATIENTS: Patients who were diagnosed with anal intraepithelial neoplasia III were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was rate of subsequent anal squamous cell carcinoma. Predictors for anal cancer were identified using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: A total of 2074 patients with anal intraepithelial neoplasia III were identified and followed for a median time of 4.0 years (interquartile range, 1.8-6.7 y). Of the cohort, 171 patients (8.2%) subsequently developed anal cancer. Median time from anal intraepithelial neoplasia III diagnosis to anal cancer diagnosis was 2.7 years (interquartile range, 1.1-4.5 y). Fifty-two patients (30.4%) who developed anal carcinoma were staged T2 or higher. Ablative therapies for initial anal intraepithelial neoplasia III were associated with a reduction in the risk of anal cancer (OR = 0.3 (95% CI, 0.1-0.7); p = 0.004). Time-to-event analysis revealed that the 5-year incidence of anal carcinoma after anal intraepithelial neoplasia III was 9.5% or ≈1.9% per year. LIMITATIONS: The registry did not record HIV status, surveillance schedule, use of high-resolution anoscopy, or provider specialty. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest published cohort of patients with anal intraepithelial neoplasia III, ≈10% of patients were projected to develop anal cancer within 5 years. Nearly one third of anal cancers were diagnosed at stage T2 or higher despite a previous diagnosis of anal intraepithelial neoplasia III. Ablative procedures were associated with a decreased risk of cancer. This study highlights the considerable rate of malignancy in patients with anal intraepithelial neoplasia III and the need for effective therapies and surveillance. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A764.

Sigmoidectomy syndrome? Patients' perspectives on the functional outcomes following surgery for diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: Bowel function following surgery for diverticulitis has not previously been systematically described. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to document the frequency, severity, and predictors of suboptimal bowel function in patients who have undergone sigmoid colectomy for diverticulitis. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective analysis. SETTING: This study was conducted at a large, academic medical center. PATIENTS: Three hundred twenty-five patients who underwent laparoscopic or open sigmoid colectomy with restoration of intestinal continuity for diverticulitis were included in the study population. Of these, 249 patients (76.6%) returned a 70-question survey incorporating the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale, and the Memorial Bowel Function Instrument. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survey responders and nonresponders were compared with the use of χ and t tests. Responders with suboptimal bowel function (fecal incontinence, urgency and/or incomplete emptying) were then compared with those with good outcomes by the use of logistic regression analysis to determine the predictors of poor function. RESULTS: Of the responders, 24.8% reported clinically relevant fecal incontinence (Fecal Incontinence Severity Index ≥ 24), 19.6% reported fecal urgency (Memorial Bowel Function Instrument Urgency Subscale ≥ 4), and 20.8% reported incomplete emptying (Memorial Bowel Function Instrument Emptying Subscale ≥ 4). On logistic regression analysis, fecal incontinence was predicted by female sex (OR = 2.3, p = 0.008) and the presence of a preoperative abscess (OR = 1.4, p < 0.05). Fecal urgency was associated with female sex (OR = 1.3, p < 0.05) and a diverting ileostomy (OR = 2.1, p < 0.001). Incomplete emptying was associated with female sex (OR = 1.4, p < 0.05) and postoperative sepsis (OR = 1.9, p < 0.05). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the fact that we did not use a nondiverticulitis control group and we had limited preoperative data on the history of bowel impairment symptoms. CONCLUSION: One-fifth of patients reported fecal urgency, fecal incontinence, or incomplete emptying after surgery for diverticulitis. Despite the limitations of our study, these results are concerning and should be investigated further prospectively.