Less is more-the best test for anastomotic leaks in rectal cancer patients prior to ileostomy reversal.

PURPOSE: No clear consensus exists on how to routinely assess the integrity of the colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of contrast enema, endoscopic procedures, and digital rectal examination in rectal cancer patients in this setting. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed. Studies assessing at least one index test for which a 2 × 2 table was calculable were included. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated and used for test comparison. Paired data were used where parameters could not be calculated. Methodological quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. RESULTS: Two prospective and 11 retrospective studies comprising 1903 patients were eligible for inclusion. Paired data analysis showed equal or better results for sensitivity and specificity of both endoscopic procedures and digital rectal examination compared to contrast enema. Subgroup analysis of contrast enema according to methodological quality revealed that studies with higher methodological quality reported poorer sensitivity for equal specificity and vice versa. No case was described where a contrast enema revealed an anastomotic leak that was overseen in digital rectal examination or endoscopic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopy and digital rectal examination appear to be the best diagnostic tests to assess the integrity of the colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal. Accuracy measures of contrast enema are overestimated by studies with lower methodological quality. Synopsis of existing evidence and risk-benefit considerations justifies omission of contrast enema in favor of endoscopic and clinical assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019107771.

New kid on the block: perineal stapled prolapse resection (PSP) is it worthwhile in the long-term?

PURPOSE: Perineal stapled prolapse resection (PSP) has been described as a new surgical treatment for external rectal prolapse in 2008. Short-term and midterm results acknowledged PSP as a safe, fast and simple procedure for high-risk patients. This study aims to assess long-term results after PSP. METHODS: All patients who underwent PSP from 2007 to 2015 were analyzed retrospectively. Data was gathered from medical records and operative reports and by interviews with the general practitioner or the patient. RESULTS: Indication for PSP was provided in 64 cases. One procedure had to be changed to an Altemeier's and another to a laparoscopic rectopexy. The median age was 79.9 years (range 25.9-97.5). Spinal anaesthesia was used in 19 patients. The median operation time was 32.5 min (range 25-51.2). There was no mortality. One patient had to be reoperated. All other complications were minor. The median hospital stay was 6.0 days (range 2-23). Median follow-up of patients alive was 6.0 years (range 0.2-8.4). The 5-year recurrence-free survival rate for primary prolapse was 70.1 % compared to 34.3 % for recurrent prolapses (p = 0.048). Further positive prognostic factors were specimen length over 8 cm and lack of preoperative obstructed defecation syndrome. Faecal incontinence was remedied in 18, and new onset was recorded in 6 patients (significant incontinence rate reduction (p = 0.025)). CONCLUSION: Due to low morbidity and the possibility of spinal anaesthesia, PSP is suitable for frail patients. The recurrence rate for primary prolapse is similar to alternative perineal procedures like Delorme's and Altemeier's, but inferior to the laparoscopic techniques.