Local excision after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus total mesorectal excision: a case-matched study in 110 selected high-risk patients with rectal cancer.

AIM: The aim of this comparative study was to report a 10-year experience of an organ preservation strategy by local excision (LE) in selected high-risk patients (aged patients and/or patients with severe comorbidity and/or indication for abdominoperineal excision) versus total mesorectal excision (TME) after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT) for patients with locally advanced (T3-T4 and/or N+) low and mid rectal cancer with suspicion of complete tumour response (CTR) or near-CTR. METHOD: Thirty-nine patients with rectal cancer who underwent LE after RCT for suspicion of CTR were matched to 71 patients who underwent TME according to body mass index, gender, tumour location and ypTNM stage. Operative, oncological and functional results were compared between groups. RESULTS: In the LE group, ypT0, ypTis or ypT1N0R0 were noted in 28/39 (72%). Overall morbidity was observed in 10/39 (26%) in LE vs 46/71 in the TME group (65%) (P = 0.001). Severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) was noted in 1/39 patients from the LE group (3%) vs 3/71 (4%) from the TME group (P = 1.000). After a mean follow-up of 63 ± 4 months (range 56-70 months), local recurrence was noted in 2/39 (5%) from the LE group vs 2/71 (3%) from the TME group (P = 0.601). Definitive stoma was noted in 2/39 (6%) from the LE group vs 8/71 (12%) from the TME group (P = 0.489). Major low anterior resection syndrome was noted in 5/23 (22%) from LE group vs 11/33 (33%) from the TME group (P = 0.042). CONCLUSION: The accuracy of response prediction after RCT was 72% after LE. In high-risk patients, LE represents a safe alternative to TME with better functional results and the same long-term oncological outcome.

Reversal of Hartmann's procedure in patients following failed colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: an analysis of 45 consecutive cases.

AIM: This study aimed to assess outcomes of Hartmann's reversal (HR) after failure of previous colorectal anastomosis (CRA) or coloanal anastomosis (CAA). METHODS: All patients planned for HR from 1997 to 2018 following the failure of previous CRA or CAA were included. RESULTS: From 1997 to 2018, 45 HRs were planned following failed CRA or CAA performed for rectal cancer (n = 19, 42%), diverticulitis (n = 16, 36%), colon cancer (n = 4, 9%), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 2, 4%) or other aetiologies (n = 4, 9%). In two (4%) patients, HR could not be performed. HR was performed in 43/45 (96%) patients with stapled CRA (n = 24, 53%), delayed handsewn CAA with colonic pull-through (n = 11, 24%), standard handsewn CAA (n = 6, 14%) or stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (n = 2, 4%). One (2%) patient died postoperatively. Overall postoperative morbidity rate was 44%, including 27% of patients with severe postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3). After a mean follow-up of 38 ± 30 months (range 1-109), 35/45 (78%) patients presented without stoma. Multivariate analysis identified a remnant rectal stump < 7.5 cm in length as the only independent risk factor for long-term persistent stoma. Among stoma-free patients, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score was ≤ 20 (normal) in 43%, between 21 and 29 (minor LARS) in 33% and ≥ 30 (major LARS) in 24% of the patients. CONCLUSION: HR can be recommended in patients following a failed CRA or CAA. It permits 78% of patients to be free of stoma. A short length of the remnant rectal stump is the only predictive factor of persistent stoma in these patients.

Does a transanal drainage tube reduce anastomotic leakage? A matched cohort study in 144 patients undergoing laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of transanal drainage (TD) tube (a Foley catheter) on the anastomotic leak (AL) rate after laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer (SSS). METHODS: A prospective study was conducted on, all consecutive patients undergoing SSS at our institution between June 2017 and October 2018. All patients had TD for at least 4 days after surgery and constituted the TD group. The patients from TD group were matched to patients who underwent SSS without TD between January 2015 and May 2017 (no-TD group) according to age, sex, body mass index, neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy, mesorectal excision (total vs partial), and type of anastomosis (stapled vs hand sewn and side-to-end versus end-to-end). The primary endpoint was the AL rate, including both clinical and radiological AL. RESULTS: A total of 258 patients were included. Eighty-nine patients (34%) had a TD tube. After matching, 72 patients were included in each group. Mean TD duration was 3.9 [2.0-5.9] days. No significant differences between groups were observed in the rates of overall AL: 25/72 (35%) (TD) vs 17/72 (22%) (no-TD), (p = 0.14), clinical AL: 13/72 (18%) (TD) vs 7/72 (10%) (no-TD), (p = 0.23), and asymptomatic radiological AL: 12/72 (17%) (TD) vs 9/72 (13%) (no-TD), (p = 0.64). Multivariate analysis showed that male sex (OR 2.92, 95% CI [1.04-8.24]) and preoperative radiochemotherapy (OR 5.66, 95% CI [1.36-23.53]) were associated with AL. CONCLUSIONS: Our case-matched study suggested that a TD tube does not reduce the AL rate after laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer.

What is the outcome for patients undergoing more than two ileocolonic resections for recurrent Crohn's disease? A comparative study of 569 consecutive procedures.

AIM: To assess the outcome for patients undergoing repeated ileocolonic resection for recurrent Crohn's disease (CD). METHOD: All patients undergoing ileocolonic resection for terminal ileal CD between 1998 and 2016 in our tertiary care centre were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Between 1998 and 2016, 569 ileocolonic resections were performed for CD: 403 of these were primary resections (1R, 71%), 107 second resections (2R, 19%) and 59 were third (or more) resections (> 2R, 10%). The laparoscopic approach rate was significantly less in the > 2R group (20/59, 34%) compared with the 2R (71/107, 66%; P = 0.002) and 1R (366/403, 91%) groups. However, conversion to an open approach did not show any difference between the three groups [1R group 46/366 (13%) vs 2R group 14/71 (20%) vs > 2R group 3/20 (15%); 1R vs > 2R P = 0.750; 2R vs > 2R P = 0.633]. Postoperative morbidity was significantly increased in the > 2R (28/59, 52%) group compared with the 1R group (115/403, 29%; P < 0.001) but showed no difference compared with the 2R group (43/107, 40%; P = 0.365). There was no difference between the groups in the incidence of severe postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) [1R group n = 24 (6%); 2R group n = 6 (6%); > 2R group n = 4, 7%; 1R vs > 2R P = 0.865, 2R vs > 2R P = 0.761]. CONCLUSION: Although the overall morbidity rate was higher, repeated surgery for recurrent CD in patients undergoing three or more ileocolonic resections was not associated with an increased risk of severe postoperative morbidity in our series.

Redo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: outcomes from a case-controlled study.

AIM: To assess short- and long-term outcomes of redo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (redo-IPAA) for failed IPAA, comparing them with those of successful IPAA. METHOD: This was a case-control study. Data were collected retrospectively from prospectively maintained databases from two tertiary care centres. Patients who had a redo-IPAA between 1999 and 2016 were identified and matched (1:2) with patients who had a primary IPAA (p-IPAA), according to diagnosis, age and body mass index. RESULTS: Thirty-nine redo-IPAAs (16 transanal and 23 abdominal procedures) were identified, and were matched with 78 p-IPAAs. After a mean follow-up of 56 ± 51  (2.6-190) months, failure rates after transanal and abdominal approaches were 50% and 15%, respectively. Reoperation after the transanal approach was higher than after p-IPAA (69% vs 7%; P < 0.001). No differences were noted between the abdominal approach for redo-IPAA and p-IPAA in terms of morbidity (61% for redo-IPAA vs 38% for p-IPAA; P = 0.06), major morbidity (9% vs 8%; P = 0.96), anastomotic leakage (13% vs 10%; P = 0.74), mean daily bowel movements (6 vs 5.5; P = 0.68), night-time bowel movements (1.2 vs 1; P = 0.51), faecal incontinence (13% vs 7%; P = 0.40), urgency (31% vs 27%; P = 0.59), use of anti-diarrhoeal drugs (47% vs 37%; P = 0.70), mean Cleveland Global Quality-of-Life score (7 vs 7; P = 0.83) or sexual function. CONCLUSION: The abdominal approach for redo-IPAA is justified in cases of pouch failure because it achieves functional results comparable with those observed after p-IPAA, without higher postoperative morbidity. The transanal approach should be chosen sparingly.

Hospital stay for temporary stoma closure is shortened by C-reactive protein monitoring: a prospective case-matched study.

BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein (CRP) has been suggested as a satisfactory early marker of postoperative complications after colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of a CRP monitoring-driven discharge strategy, after stoma reversal following laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer. METHODS: Eighty-eight patients who had stoma reversal between June 2016 and April 2018 had CRP serum level monitoring on postoperative day (POD) 3 and, if necessary, on POD5. Patients were discharged on POD4 if the CRP level was < 100 mg/L. Patients were matched [according to age, gender, body mass index, neoadjuvant pelvic irradiation, type of anastomosis (stapled or manual), and adjuvant chemotherapy] to 109 identical control patients who had stoma reversal between 2012 and 2016 with the same postoperative care but without CRP monitoring. RESULTS: Postoperative 30-day overall morbidity [CRP group: 12/88 (14%) vs controls: 11/109, (10%), p = 0.441] and severe morbidity rates (i.e. Dindo 3-4) [CRP group: 2/88 (2%) vs controls: 2/109 (2%), p = 0.838] were similar between groups. Mean length of stay was significantly shorter in the CRP group (CRP group: 4.6 ± 1.3 vs controls: 5.8 ± 1.8 days; p < 0.001). Discharge occurred before POD5 in 59/88 (67%) CRP patients vs 15/109 (14%) controls (p < 0.001). The unplanned rehospitalization rate [CRP group: 6/88 (7%) vs controls: 4/109 (4%), p = 0.347] was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients having temporary stoma closure after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, postoperative CRP monitoring is associated with a significant shortening of hospital stay without increasing morbidity or rehospitalization rates.

Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in laparoscopic colorectal surgery improves postoperative pain management: a meta-analysis.

AIM: Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is a locoregional anaesthesia technique of growing interest in abdominal surgery. However, its efficacy following laparoscopic colorectal surgery is still debated. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of TAP block after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHOD: All comparative studies focusing on TAP block after laparoscopic colorectal surgery have been systematically identified through the MEDLINE database, reviewed and included. Meta-analysis was performed according to the Mantel-Haenszel method for random effects. End-points included postoperative opioid consumption, morbidity, time to first bowel movement and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies, including 7 randomized controlled trials, were included, comprising a total of 600 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery with TAP block, compared with 762 patients without TAP block. Meta-analysis of these studies showed that TAP block was associated with a significantly reduced postoperative opioid consumption on the first day after surgery [weighted mean difference (WMD) -14.54 (-25.14; -3.94); P = 0.007] and a significantly shorter time to first bowel movement [WMD -0.53 (-0.61; -0.44); P < 0.001] but failed to show any impact on length of hospital stay [WMD -0.32 (-0.83; 0.20); P = 0.23] although no study considered length of stay as its primary outcome. Finally, TAP block was not associated with a significant increase in the postoperative overall complication rate [OR = 0.84 (0.62-1.14); P = 0.27]. CONCLUSION: Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in laparoscopic colorectal surgery improves postoperative opioid consumption and recovery of postoperative digestive function without any significant drawback.

Is trans-anal total mesorectal excision really safe and better than laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with a perineal approach first in patients with low rectal cancer? A learning curve with case-matched study in 68 patients.

AIM: To compare the learning curve for trans-anal total mesorectal excision (TATME) with laparoscopic TME started by a perineal approach (LTME). METHOD: The first 34 consecutive patients who underwent TATME for low rectal cancer were matched with LTME (performed by the same surgeon) for gender, body mass index and chemoradiation. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients undergoing TATME (23 men; 58 ± 14 years) were matched with 34 undergoing LTME (23 men; 59 ± 13 years). Intra-operative complications occurred more frequently during TATME (21%) than LTME (6%), but this difference was not significant (P = 0.07). The complications of TATME included rectal (n = 4), bladder (n = 1) and vaginal (n = 1) injury and bleeding (n = 1). Length of stay and postoperative overall and major morbidities were similar between groups. Early symptomatic anastomotic leakage (AL) occurred in 1/34 TATME and 5/34 LTME (15%; P = 0.02) procedures. Asymptomatic AL occurred in four TATME (12%) and four LTME (12%, P = 1). Thus, the overall rate of AL was 5/34 (15%) for TATME vs 9/34 (26%) for LTME (P = 0.4). No significant difference between the two groups was noted with regard to tumour, number of harvested and positive lymph nodes, R1 resection rate or completeness of the mesorectum. Metastatic recurrence was similar between groups (15% vs 18%, P = 0.7), but follow-up was shorter after TATME (13 ± 6 months) than after LTME (25 ± 14 months; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The TATME learning curve seems to be associated with a significant rate of intra-operative complications. Because no significant benefit has been reported to date, more evidence is needed before TATME can be considered as a better approach than laparoscopic TME with a perineal approach first in patients with low rectal cancer.

Oncological impact of anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic mesorectal excision.

BACKGROUND: The effect of anastomotic leakage on oncological outcomes after total mesorectal excision (TME) is controversial. This study aimed to assess the influence of symptomatic and asymptomatic anastomotic leakage on oncological outcomes after laparoscopic TME. METHODS: All patients who underwent restorative laparoscopic TME for rectal adenocarcinoma with curative intent from 2005 to 2014 were identified from an institutional database. Asymptomatic anastomotic leakage was defined by CT performed systematically 4-8 weeks after rectal surgery, with no relevant clinical symptoms or laboratory examination findings during the postoperative course. RESULTS: Of a total of 428 patients, anastomotic leakage was observed in 120 (28·0 per cent) (50 asymptomatic, 70 symptomatic). After a mean follow-up of 40 months, local recurrence was observed in 36 patients (8·4 per cent). Multivariable Cox regression identified three independent risk factors for reduced local recurrence-free survival (LRFS): symptomatic anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) 2·13, 95 per cent c.i. 1·29 to 3·50; P = 0·003), positive resection margin (R1) (OR 2·41, 1·40 to 4·16; P = 0·001) and pT3-4 category (OR 1·77, 1·08 to 2·90; P = 0·022). Patients with no risk factor for reduced LRFS had an estimated 5-year LRFS rate of 87·7(s.d. 3·2) per cent, whereas the rate dropped to 75·3(4·3) per cent with one risk factor, 67(7) per cent with two risk factors, and 14(13) per cent with three risk factors (P < 0·001). Asymptomatic anastomotic leakage was not significantly associated with LRFS in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic anastomotic leakage is a risk factor for disease recurrence in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma.

Circumferential margin involvement after total mesorectal excision for mid or low rectal cancer: are all R1 resections equal?

AIM: Our aim was to assess the prognostic influence of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) exact value after total mesorectal excision for mid or low rectal cancer. METHODS: All patients (n = 321) who underwent total mesorectal excision from 2005 to 2013 were identified from a prospective database, including 49 (15%) who presented with a CRM ≤ 1 mm. Four groups were defined: group 1, CRM = 0 mm (n = 21); group 2, 0 < CRM ≤ 0.4 mm (n = 13); group 3, 0.4 < CRM ≤ 1 mm (n = 15); group 4, CRM > 1 mm (n = 272). RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 42 ± 26 months, locoregional recurrence rates were 8/21 (38%) in group 1, 3/13 (23%) in group 2, 0/12 (0%) in group 3 and 26/272 (10%) in group 4 (P < 0.001), leading to significantly impaired 3-year locoregional recurrence-free survival in group 1 (57% ± 13%) and group 2 (56% ± 15%) compared to group 3 (85% ± 10%, vs group 1, P = 0.021, vs group 2, P = 0.049) and to group 4 (89% ± 2%, vs group 1, P < 0.001, vs group 2, P < 0.001). In multivariate Cox analysis, a CRM ≤ 0.4 mm was identified as an independent factor impairing both locoregional recurrence-free survival (OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.53-6.46; P = 0.002) and disease-free survival (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.28-3.63; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the prognosis after mid or low rectal cancer surgery was worse with a CRM ≤ 0.4 mm. The prognosis was similar in patients with a CRM > 0.4 mm or ≤ 1 mm and patients with an R0 resection.

Anastomotic stenosis after coloanal, colorectal and ileoanal anastomosis: what is the best management?

AIM: To assess the results of treatment for colorectal (CRA), coloanal (CAA) or ileal pouch-anal (IPAA) anastomotic stenosis (AS). METHOD: All patients operated on for AS from 1995 to 2014 were included. Success was defined as the absence of an additional surgical procedure for AS during 12 months after the last procedure and the absence of a stoma at the end of follow-up. RESULTS: Fifty consecutive patients presenting with AS after CRA (n = 16, 32%), CAA (n = 18, 36%) or IPAA (n = 16, 32%), performed for colorectal cancer (n = 28, 56%), familial adenomatous polyposis (n = 5, 10%), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 8, 16%), diverticulitis (n = 4, 8%), benign colorectal neoplasia (n = 3, 6%) or other (n = 2, 4%) underwent a total of 99 procedures including digital (n = 14, 14%), instrumental (n = 38, 38%) or endoscopic dilatation (n = 5, 5%), transanal AS stricturoplasty (n = 9, 10%), transanal circular stapler resection (n = 11, 11%) or transabdominal redo-anastomosis (n = 22, 22%). Overall the per-procedure success rate was 53% (52/99). Success rates were 36% (5/14) for digital dilatation, 40% (15/38) for instrumental dilatation, 20% (1/5) for endoscopic dilatation, 64% (7/11) for circular stapler resection, 89% (8/9) for stricturoplasty and 73% (16/22) for transabdominal redo-anastomosis. After a mean follow-up of 46 months, 42/50 (84%) patients had treatment that was considered successful. Multivariate analysis identified redo-anastomosis [OR = 5.1 (95% CI: 1.4-18.7), P = 0.003] as the only independent prognostic factor for success. CONCLUSION: AS should be managed according to a step-up strategy. Conservative procedures are associated with acceptable success rates. If these fail, transabdominal redo-anastomosis is associated with the highest probability of success.

Is abdominal CT useful for the management of patients with severe acute colitis complicating inflammatory bowel disease? A study in 54 consecutive patients.

AIM: To evaluate the contribution of CT for the management of patients with severe acute exacerbation of colitis (SAC) complicating inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); in particular, its contribution to surgical decision making. METHOD: All patients who were admitted to our institution for SAC complicating IBD were divided into two groups: group A (those who received surgical treatment); and group B (those who received medical treatment). Admission CT results were compared between groups. RESULTS: From 2006 to 2015, 54 patients [26 male; median age 39 (17-71) years] presenting with SAC were placed in either group A (n = 41; 76%) or group B (n = 13; 24%). Surgical patients in group A more frequently had altered general status (50 vs 17%; P = 0.01). Physical examination, Lichtiger score, endoscopic findings and laboratory results were similar between the groups. There was no significant difference in CT data between the groups with respect to extent of the colitis (pan-colitis in 54 and 69%, respectively, P = 0.35), median colonic thickness [10 (4-16) vs 8 (6-11) mm, P = 0.15], target enhancement (88 vs 77%, P = 0.38) and occurrence of toxic megacolon (2 vs 0%). CONCLUSION: Admission CT is not helpful in surgical decision making in SAC.

Management of rectal cancer: the 2016 French guidelines.

AIM: Rectal cancer is a malignant disease requiring multidisciplinary management. In view of the increasing number of studies published over the past decade, a comprehensive update is required to draw recommendations for clinical practice mandated by the French Research Group of Rectal Cancer Surgery and the French National Coloproctology Society. METHOD: Seven questions summarizing the treatment of rectal cancer were selected. A search for evidence in the literature from January 2004 to December 2015 was performed. A drafting committee and a large group of expert reviewers contributed to validate the statements. RESULTS: Recommendations include the indications for neoadjuvant therapy, the quality criteria for surgical resection, the management of postoperative disordered function, the role of local excision in early rectal cancer, the place of conservative strategies after neoadjuvant treatment, the management of synchronous liver metastases and the indications for adjuvant therapy. A level of evidence was assigned to each statement. CONCLUSION: The current clinical practice guidelines are useful for the treatment of rectal cancer. Some statements require a higher level of evidence due to a lack of studies.

Peritoneal perforation is less a complication than an expected event during transanal endoscopic microsurgery: experience from 194 consecutive cases.

BACKGROUND: Indications for transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) have been extended to technically challenging tumors, which may be associated with an increased risk of peritoneal perforation (PP). The aim of the present study was to investigate the occurrence, management and outcome of PP in patients having TEM. METHODS: All the patients who had TEM for rectal adenoma or adenocarcinoma in our unit were included. Patients in whom PP occurred (Group A) were compared to those without PP (Group B). RESULTS: From 2007 to 2015, 194 TEM (116 men, median age 66 [range 21-100] years) were divided into Groups A (n = 28, 14%) and B (n = 166). The latter group included four patients, in whom a laparoscopy did not confirm suspicion of PP made during TEM. In 2 of 28 patients (7%), the diagnosis of PP was made postoperatively during reoperation for peritonitis. For the 26 other patients (93%), routine exploratory laparoscopy was performed with suture of the peritoneal defect on the pouch of Douglas in 24 cases and a rectal suture alone in 2 cases. Independent predictive factors for PP were: distance from the anal verge >10 cm (OR = 3.6), circumferential tumor (OR = 3.0) and anterior location (OR = 2.7). Hospital stay was significantly longer in Group A (7.5 [3-31] days) than in Group B (4 [1-38] days; p < 0.0001), whereas there was no significant difference regarding postoperative morbidity and recurrence rate. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that PP is not a very rare event during TEM, especially in anterior, circumferential and/or high rectal tumors. Laparoscopic treatment of PP is feasible and safe. The occurrence of PP is not associated with poor oncologic results.

Anoperineal lesions in Crohn's disease: French recommendations for clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Anoperineal lesion (APL) occurrence is a significant event in the evolution of Crohn's disease (CD). Management should involve a multidisciplinary approach combining the knowledge of the gastroenterologist, the colorectal surgeon and the radiologist who have appropriate experience in this area. Given the low level of evidence of available medical and surgical strategies, the aim of this work was to establish a French expert consensus on management of anal Crohn's disease. These recommendations were led under the aegis of the Société Nationale Française de Colo-Proctologie (SNFCP). They report a consensus on the management of perianal Crohn's disease lesions, including fistulas, ulceration and anorectal stenosis and propose an appropriate treatment strategy, as well as sphincter-preserving and multidisciplinary management. METHODOLOGY: A panel of French gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons with expertise in inflammatory bowel diseases reviewed the literature in order to provide practical management pathways for perianal CD. Analysis of the literature was made according to the recommendations of the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) to establish a level of proof for each publication and then to propose a rank of recommendation. When lack of factual data precluded ranking according to the HAS, proposals based on expert opinion were written. Therefore, once all the authors agreed on a consensual statement, it was then submitted to all the members of the SNFCP. As initial literature review stopped in December 2014, more recent European or international guidelines have been published since and were included in the analysis. RESULTS: MRI is recommended for complex secondary lesions, particularly after failure of previous medical and/or surgical treatments. For severe anal ulceration in Crohn's disease, maximal medical treatment with anti-TNF agent is recommended. After prolonged drainage of simple anal fistula by a flexible elastic loop or loosely tied seton, and after obtaining luminal and perineal remission by immunosuppressive therapy and/or anti-TNF agents, the surgical treatment options to be discussed are simple seton removal or injection of the fistula tract with biological glue. After prolonged loose-seton drainage of the complex anal fistula in Crohn's disease, and after obtaining luminal and perineal remission with anti-TNF ± immunosuppressive therapy, surgical treatment options are simple removal of seton and rectal advancement flap. Colostomy is indicated as a last option for severe APL, possibly associated with a proctectomy if there is refractory rectal involvement after failure of other medical and surgical treatments. The evaluation of anorectal stenosis of Crohn's disease (ARSCD) requires a physical examination, sometimes under anesthesia, plus endoscopy with biopsies and MRI to describe the stenosis itself, to identify associated inflammatory, infectious or dysplastic lesions, and to search for injury or fibrosis of the sphincter. Therapeutic strategy for ARSCD requires medical-surgical cooperation.

Effect of appendicectomy on colonic inflammation and neoplasia in experimental ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis (UC) promotes cancer, and can be ameliorated by early appendicectomy for appendicitis. The aim of the study was to explore the effect of appendicectomy on colitis and colonic neoplasia in an animal model of colitis and a cohort of patients with UC. METHODS: Five-week old IL10/Nox1(DKO) mice with nascent colitis and 8-week-old IL10/Nox1(DKO) mice with established colitis underwent appendicectomy (for experimental appendicitis or no appendicitis) or sham laparotomy. The severity and extent of colitis was assessed by histopathological examination, and a clinical disease activity score was given. From a cohort of consecutive patients with UC who underwent colectomy, the prevalence of appendicectomy and pathological findings were collected from two institutional databases. RESULTS: Appendicectomy for appendicitis ameliorated experimental colitis in the mice; the effect was more pronounced in the 5-week-old animals. Appendicectomy in the no-appendicitis group was associated with an increased rate of colonic high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or cancer compared with rates in sham and appendicitis groups (13 of 20 versus 0 of 20 and 0 of 20 respectively; P < 0·001). Fifteen of 232 patients who underwent colectomy for UC had previously had an appendicectomy, and nine of these had colonic cancer or HGD. Thirty (13·8 per cent) of 217 patients with the appendix in situ had colonic neoplastic lesions. Multivariable analysis showed that previous appendicectomy was associated with colorectal neoplasia (odds ratio 16·88, 95 per cent c.i. 3·32 to 112·69). CONCLUSION: Appendicectomy for experimental appendicitis ameliorated colitis. The risk of colorectal neoplasia appeared to increase following appendicectomy without induced appendicitis in a mouse model of colitis, and in patients with UC who had undergone appendicectomy. Surgical relevance Appendicectomy for appendicitis protects against UC. In this murine model of colitis, appendicectomy for experimental appendicitis protected against colitis, but appendicectomy without appendicitis promoted colorectal carcinogenesis. In patients with ulcerative colitis who underwent colectomy, absence of the appendix (proof of previous appendicectomy) in the resection specimen was independently associated with colorectal neoplasia. Although patients with UC and a history of appendicectomy represent a small subset, they may need closer monitoring for colorectal neoplasia.

Is biological mesh interposition a valid option for complex or recurrent rectovaginal fistula?

AIM: Many surgical techniques are available for the treatment of rectovaginal fistula (RVF). There is hitherto little information on its treatment by biological mesh interposition. The aim of the present study was to analyse our results of RVF treatment using biological mesh interposition. METHOD: Patients with RVF undergoing biological mesh interposition were identified. Success was defined by the absence of a diverting stoma and/or any vaginal discharge of faeces, flatus or mucous discharge. RESULTS: Ten women [median age 39 (24.5-65) years] were included. Nine (90%) had recurrent RVF, and the median number of previous attempts at closure was 2.5 (0-8). The main cause of RVF was Crohn's disease (40%). All patients had faecal diversion. No intra-operative complications occurred from mesh interposition. Seven (70%) patients developed postoperative morbidity which was major (Dindo III) in two (20%). The primary success rate was 20% (2/10) but final success rate was achieved in 70% after reoperation with other procedures at 11.1 (2.7-13.1) months of follow-up. CONCLUSION: The study has shown disappointing results with biological mesh interposition for RVF with a healing rate lower than achieved by gracilis muscle interposition.

Is it time to rethink the rule of total mesorectal excision? A prospective radiological and pathological study in 49 consecutive patients with mid-rectal cancer.

AIM: Total mesorectal excision (TME) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is the standard treatment for T3-T4 and/or N+ mid-rectal tumours, regardless of the exact tumour level. This leads to optimal oncological results but possible impaired functional results. Reducing rectal excision could reduce the functional drawbacks. This study prospectively assessed the risk of N+ or other mesorectal tumour deposit (OTD) below the tumour level by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed after chemoradiotherapy and pathological examination of the TME specimen. METHOD: Consecutive patients with mid-rectal cancer who underwent TME after chemoradiotherapy were included. A prospective evaluation by postchemoradiotherapy MRI and pathological examination was performed to assess the location of N+ nodes and/or OTDs. RESULTS: Of 49 consecutive patients, 27 (55%) presented with nodes on postchemoradiotherapy MRI. However, only 12 nodes (size 2-4 mm) in 9 patients (18%) were under the tumour level. On pathological examination, 717 total lymph nodes were found, with 37 N+ and 22 OTD. According to the tumour level: (i) above tumour level, 21/453 nodes were N+ and 6 OTD; (ii) at tumour level, 16/166 nodes were N+ and 15 OTD; (iii) below tumour level, 0/98 nodes (0%) was N+ and only 1 OTD (2%) was noted at 2 cm below tumour level. CONCLUSION: After chemoradiotherapy, N+ and/or OTD located under the level of the rectal cancer seems to be a very rare event. A postchemoradiotherapy MRI could help detect such patients. For others patients, conservation of the lower rectum with only a subtotal mesorectal excision could possibly improve function.

Colonic prolapse after intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: a report of 12 cases.

BACKGROUND: There are no published data concerning management of patients with exteriorized colonic prolapse (CP) after intersphincteric rectal resection (ISR) and side-to-end coloanal manual anastomosis (CAA) for very low rectal cancer. The aim of the present study was to report our experience in 12 consecutive cases of CP following ISR with CAA. METHODS: From 2006 to 2014, all patients with very low rectal cancer who developed CP after ISR and CAA were reviewed. Demographic and surgical data, prolapse symptoms and treatment were recorded. Postoperative morbidity, functional outcomes and results after prolapse surgery were recorded. RESULTS: Twelve out of 143 patients (8 %) who underwent ISR with side-to-end CAA for low rectal cancer presented CP: 7/107 ISR (7 %) with partial resection of the internal anal sphincter (IAS) and 5/36 ISR (14 %) with subtotal or total resection of the IAS (NS). CP was diagnosed after a median of 6 months (range 2-72 months) after ISR. All patients with CP suffered from pain and fecal incontinence. Median Wexner fecal incontinence score before surgery was 16.5 (range 12-20). Three patients refused reoperation. Nine patients underwent transanal surgery with prolapse resection (including colonic stump and side-to-end anastomosis) and new end-to-end CAA (with posterior myorraphy in 4 cases). After a median follow-up of 30 months (range 8-87 months), 3/9 patients (33 %) had CP recurrence: One with very poor function was treated by abdominoperineal resection and definitive stoma. The 2 others were successfully reoperated on transanally. Median Wexner fecal incontinence score after CP surgery was 9 (range 0-20). No CP recurrence was noted for the 6 other patients, and function improved in all cases. Thus, at the end of follow-up, 8/9 patients (89 %) had no recurrence after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We believe surgery must be attempted in these patients who develop CP after ISR with CAA for very low rectal cancer in order to improve function and symptoms. A transanal approach with CP resection and new end-to-end anastomosis appeared to be safe and effective. Larger studies are needed to confirm our results.

What happens after R1 resection in patients undergoing laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer? A study in 333 consecutive patients.

AIM: There are no studies on the respective influence of microscopic involvement at the circumferential (R1c) and the distal margin (R1d) of the surgical specimen on oncological results after laparoscopic mesorectal excision. METHOD: We studied 333 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic mesorectal excision for cancer. An R1 resection was defined a by a circumferential and/or distal margin of 1 mm or less. RESULTS: Forty (12%) patients had an R1 resection including R1c [n = 28 (70%)], R1d [n = 7 (18%)] or both [n = 5 (12%)]. After a mean of 28 (0-97) months, comparisons of R1 with R0 resection were as follows: mortality 10% and 4% (NS), overall recurrence 48% and 19% (P < 0.001), 2-year disease-free survival rate 51% and 76% (P < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) rate 91% and 96% (NS). For R1c patients mortality was 14% (4% for R0; P = 0.026), overall recurrence 46% (19% for R0; P = 0.028) and 2-year OS 88% (96% for R0; P = 0.025). No significant differences were found between R1d and R0. The metastatic recurrence rate was greater in R1c then R0 (29% vs 12%; P = 0.036) but not for R1d (14% vs 12%; NS). Locoregional recurrence rates of R1c (7%) and R1d (0%) were similar to R0 (4%). CONCLUSION: This study shows that the poorer prognosis observed after R1 resection for rectal cancer is due to circumferential rather than distal involvement. This is mainly related to a higher rate of metastatic recurrence.