Increasing Colorectal Screening Uptake in Spouses of Patients With Colorectal Cancer Using a Randomized Behavioral Trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the few cancers for which screening has been associated with better survival and morbidity, but screening uptake has been underexplored in spouses of existing patients with CRC. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a brief, structured behavioral intervention delivered to spouses of patients with CRC in a colorectal clinical setting could increase fecal immunochemical test (FIT) uptake within 3 months of the study period. METHODS: This study was designed as a block randomized, unblinded, parallel trial conducted in the colorectal outpatient clinics of 2 public tertiary hospitals in Singapore from December 2017 to February 2023. The intervention group received a structured informational pamphlet on CRC screening by the Singapore Ministry of Health and a printed guide with instructions on how to properly use a FIT kit. RESULTS: No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the 2 groups. There was a statistically significant difference (P<.001) in FIT screening uptake between spouses in each group, with 86.2% (n=25) in the intervention group and 38.7% (n=12) in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that a brief, structured behavioral intervention offered to spouses accompanying patients with CRC while they wait for the clinic appointment is useful in increasing FIT screening uptake rates. Colorectal clinics can consider setting aside 10 to 15 minutes to educate accompanying spouses in the future as a complementary avenue to holistically promote CRC prevention, subjected to the resources available in each clinic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT04544852.

Colorectal cancer patients advocating screening to their siblings: a randomized behavioral intervention.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Siblings of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are at increased risk of developing CRC, but screening rates remain low. Through a randomized behavioral intervention, this study aimed to determine whether patients can advocate screening to their siblings using a tailored educational package. METHODS: CRC survivors were recruited and randomized into relaying either tailored materials (intervention group) or existing national screening guidelines (control group) to their siblings. Siblings could respond to the study team if they were interested in learning about CRC screening. Study outcomes were patient advocacy rates (number of patients who had successfully contacted at least 1 eligible sibling) between groups and the proportion of eligible siblings who responded. RESULTS: Between May 2017 and March 2021, 219 CRC patients were randomized to the intervention (n = 110) and control (n = 109) groups. Patient advocacy rates were high and did not differ significantly between groups. However, only 14.3% of eligible siblings (n = 85) responded to the study team. Siblings of patients from the intervention group were more likely to respond (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.0; P < .05). Moreover, after controlling for potential confounders, siblings aged ≥60 years were significantly less likely to respond (adjusted odds ratio, .3; 95% confidence interval, .1-.7; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: CRC patients are willing advocates of screening, and siblings contacted by patients from the intervention group were also more likely to reach out to the study team. However, overall sibling response rates were low despite advocacy, suggesting that patient-led advocacy should at best be used as an adjunct to other, multipronged CRC screening promotion modalities.

Factors predicting improved compliance towards colonoscopy in individuals with positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT).

OBJECTIVES: Follow-up colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in any colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme is integral. However, many individuals who had a positive FIT declined colonoscopy subsequently. This study aims to uncover the predictors on completion of colonoscopy using the Health Belief Model (HBM) between individuals who complete and those who did not after a positive FIT. METHODS: A mixed-method study comprising qualitative semi-structured interviews followed by a locally validated questionnaire in Singapore was prospectively administered via telephone interview to average risk individuals with positive FIT results from a cohort of the national FIT screening database referred for follow-up colonoscopic evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 394 individuals, with a median age of 66 years (range, 46-89 years), were recruited. Fifty percent completed follow-up colonoscopic evaluation and formed the "doers" group. All participants demonstrated high knowledge of symptoms of CRC and awareness and qualitative responses were aligned to the various HBM domains. Using multi-variable analysis, doers felt that medical recommendations (odds ratio [OR], 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23-4.63, p = 0.01) and mainstream media publicity (OR, 2.16, 95% CI: 1.09-4.26, p = 0.026) were important. Non-doers showed positive association with perceived barriers such as cost (OR, 2.15, 95% CI: 1.10-4.20, p = 0.026) and inconvenience (OR, 3.44, 95% CI: 1.50-7.89, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Identified factors such as tackling perceived barriers, public health education and active promotion by medical physicians, family and friends could help guide subsequent interventions to improve compliance of individuals with positive FIT to undergo follow-up colonoscopy.

Colorectal cancer in patients with single versus double positive faecal immunochemical test results: A retrospective cohort study from a public tertiary hospital.

BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) using the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is widely advocated. Few studies have compared the rate of detecting colonoscopic pathologies in single compared to double FIT-positive follow-up colonoscopy-compliant individuals in a two-sample national FIT screening program. OBJECTIVE: To compare CRC incidence in double FIT-positive versus single FIT-positive individuals using a retrospective cohort of patients from a tertiary hospital in Singapore. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Data was extracted from one public tertiary hospital in Singapore. PARTICIPANTS: 1,422 FIT-positive individuals from the national FIT screening program who were referred to the hospital from 1st January 2017 to 31st March 2020 for follow-up consultation and diagnostic colonoscopy. MEASUREMENTS: The exposure of interest was a positive result on both FIT kits. The main outcome was a follow-up diagnostic colonoscopy finding of CRC. The secondary outcome was a diagnostic colonoscopy finding of a colorectal polyp. RESULTS: Incidence density of CRC was 1.15 and 13.10 per 100,000 person-months, in the single and double FIT-positive group, respectively. This resulted in an incidence rate ratio of 11.40 (95% CI = 4.34, 35.09). Colorectal polyp detection was significantly higher (p < 0.01) in the double (103 of 173 participants; 59.5%) compared to the single (279 of 671 participants; 41.6%) FIT-positive group. LIMITATIONS: The key limitation of this study was the relatively small cohort derived from a single tertiary hospital, as this had the effect of limiting the number of incident cases, resulting in comparatively imprecise CIs. CONCLUSIONS: Double FIT-positive individuals are significantly more likely to have a colonoscopy finding of incident CRC or premalignant polyp than single FIT-positive individuals. Clinicians and policymakers should consider updating their CRC screening protocols accordingly.

Opportunistic upper endoscopy during colonoscopy as a screening strategy for countries with intermediate gastric cancer risk.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Screening upper endoscopy can detect esophagogastric (OG) cancers early with improved outcomes. Recent cost-utility studies suggest that opportunistic upper endoscopy at the same setting of colonoscopy might be a useful strategy for screening of OG cancers, and it may be more acceptable to the patients due to cost-saving and convenience. We aim to study the diagnostic performance of this screening strategy in a country with intermediate gastric cancer risk. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using a prospective endoscopy database from 2015 to 2017 was performed. Patients included were individuals age > 40 who underwent opportunistic upper endoscopy at the same setting of colonoscopy without any OG symptoms. Neoplastic OG lesions are defined as cancer and high-grade dysplasia. Pre-neoplastic lesions include Barrett's esophagus (BE), intestinal metaplasia (IM), and atrophic gastritis (AG). RESULTS: The study population involved 1414 patients. Neoplastic OG lesions were detected in five patients (0.35%). Pre-neoplastic lesions were identified in 174 (12.3%) patients. IM was found in 146 (10.3%) patients with 21 (1.4%) having extensive IM. The number needed to scope to detect a neoplastic OG lesion is 282.8 with an estimated cost of USD$141 400 per lesion detected. On multivariate regression, age ≥ 60 (RR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.29-2.63) and first-degree relatives with gastric cancer (RR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.06-2.55) were independent risk factors for neoplastic or pre-neoplastic OG lesion. CONCLUSION: For countries with intermediate gastric cancer risk, opportunistic upper endoscopy may be an alternative screening strategy in a selected patient population. Prospective trials are warranted to validate its performance.

Barriers and facilitators towards colonoscopy: a qualitative systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Colonoscopy is integral in the early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC), be it for screening, diagnostic or therapeutic intentions. Despite the presence of multiple screening modalities, colonoscopy remains integral in providing a definitive CRC diagnosis. However, uptake rates remain low worldwide with minimal understanding towards stakeholders' perspectives. This systematic review is the first to outline the barriers and facilitators faced by providers and patients in receiving colonoscopy specifically. METHODS: Using PRISMA guidelines, our systematic review consolidates findings from Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core collection. All perceptions of healthcare providers and screening participants aged 45 and above towards colonoscopy were included. RESULTS: Forty-five articles were included in our review. Five major analytical themes were identified - procedural perceptions, personal experiences, thoughts and concerns, societal influences, doctor-patient relationship and healthcare system. The discrepancies in knowledge between patients and providers have evidently reduced in the present decade, potentially attributable to the rising influence of social media. The sharing of providers' personal experiences, involvement of patients' family in colonoscopy recommendations and propagation of patients' positive recounts were also more apparent in the past compared to the present decade, highlighting the need to reevaluate the balance between medical confidentiality and personal touch. Additionally, Asian patients were reportedly more apathetic towards CRC diagnosis due to their strong belief in destiny, a crucial association consistent with present studies. CONCLUSION: This study highlights pertinent gaps in our healthcare system, providing crucial groundwork for interventions to be enacted in engendering higher colonoscopy uptake rates.

The health belief model and colorectal cancer screening in the general population: A systematic review.

Colorectal cancer screening saves lives and is cost-effective. It allows early detection of the pathology, and enables earlier medical intervention. Despite clinical practice guidelines promoting screening for average risk individuals, uptake remains suboptimal in many populations. Few studies have examined how sociobehavioural factors influence screening uptake in the context of behaviour change theories such as the health belief model. This systematic review therefore examines how the health belief model's constructs are associated with colorectal cancer screening. Four databases were systematically searched from inception to September 2019. Quantitative observational studies that used the health belief model to examine colorectal screening history, intention or behaviour were included. A total of 30 studies met the criteria for review; all were of cross-sectional design. Perceived susceptibility, benefits and cues to action were directly associated with screening history or intention. Perceived barriers inversely associated with screening history or intention. The studies included also found other modifying factors including sociodemographic and cultural norms. Self-report of screening history, intention or behaviour, convenience sampling and lack of temporality among factors were common limitations across studies. The health belief model's associations with colorectal cancer screening uptake was consistent with preventive health behaviours in general. Future studies should examine how theory-based behavioural interventions can be tailored to account for the influence of socioecological factors.

Colorectal cancer patients can be advocates for colorectal cancer screening for their siblings: A study on siblings' perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to explore in-depth, the issues and barriers pertaining to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening amongst the siblings of CRC patients in view of their higher risk of developing CRC. METHODS: A qualitative study of siblings of CRC patients was performed from August 2017 to October 2018. Semi-structured interviewed were performed until data saturation was achieved. The data was then thematically analysed. RESULTS: A total of 36 siblings of CRC patients, with a median age of 59 (range 39-78) years old completed the interviews. All the interviews were conducted alone with the participants. Each interview lasted between 30 and 45 minutes. None of the participants has undergone screening colonoscopy prior to the interviews. After thematic analysis, five themes were identified. These include: (i) Misunderstanding their own risk of developing colorectal cancer; (ii) Misperceptions of the role of "screening" for colorectal cancer.; (iii) Misconception of the CRC screening modality for FDRs; (iv) Barriers and facilitators of undergoing screening; (v) Misperceptions of national healthcare policies. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying and addressing the identified barriers for these siblings to undergo screening colonoscopy is easily attainable. A multi-pronged approach should also be adopted to address the various concerns so as to reduce the incidence of CRC amongst these higher risk individuals.

T4N0 colon cancers should be treated like T3N1 disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with positive lymph nodal involvement in colon cancer have always been deemed to fare worse than those without. However, questions have been increasingly raised on the true prognosis of T4N0 disease. We conducted this study to investigate how T4N0 disease would compare with T3N1 disease. METHODS: All patients with colon cancer treated from 2008 to 2014 was collected. Preoperative, intraoperative and histological information was compared between patients with T4N0 and T3N1 disease. Variables which significantly differed were included in multivariate analysis for recurrence and survival. Kaplan-Meier curves and cox regression analysis for time to recurrence and survival were evaluated. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients had T4N0 colon cancer, while 160 had T3N1 disease. Vascular invasion, lymphatic invasion, total lymph node yield, and the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy were identified as variables for evaluation. Over a median follow-up of 41.4 (range, 21.6-65.0) months for T4N0 patients and 42.4 (range, 21.1-63.8) months for T3N1 patients, there was no statistically significant difference in the association of stage of cancer with survival [overall survival (OS): 0.97 (95% CI, 0.38-2.45), P=0.94]. Kaplan-Meier curves also showed no difference in time to death (P=0.867). There was no statistically significant difference in the time to death [hazard ratio (HR): 0.56 (95% CI, 0.20-1.55), P=0.26]. CONCLUSIONS: T4N0 colon cancers have similar outcomes to T3N1 disease and should be considered as stage III disease in future classification. Patients diagnosed with T4N0 disease should receive similar treatment as those with T3N1 disease and counselled accordingly.

Endoscopic stenting in colorectal cancer.

Acute malignant large bowel obstruction presents as one of the few emergencies of colorectal cancer (CRC). Management of this condition can either be by (I) upfront surgery or (II) the use of self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) as a bridge to elective surgery. For patients with metastasis, the use of SEMS is reported to enable earlier commencement of chemotherapy. Although the use of SEMS in patients with acute malignant large bowel obstruction looks promising, it is plagued by its own set of complications and divided opinion over its long-term outcomes. Conflicting data are present, and definitive indication requires further evaluation and debate. This article will describe the typical presentation of patients with acute malignant large bowel obstruction. An introduction to the SEMS insertion procedural steps will be undertaken. Following which the article aims to review the safety profile of SEMS and the short- and long-term outcomes of SEMS in both the curative and palliative setting.

Endoscopic stenting should be advocated in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer presenting with acute obstruction.

BACKGROUND: It remains contentious whether endoscopic stenting or upfront surgery is more optimal in patients with metastatic colorectal cancers presenting with large bowel obstruction. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who underwent either endoscopic stenting or emergency surgery for acute large bowel obstruction was performed. RESULTS: Between January 2007 and June 2014, 66 patients, median age, 64 (range, 25-96) years, presented with acute large bowel obstruction from metastatic colorectal cancer. Forty (60.6%) patients underwent endoscopic stenting whilst the rest received immediate upfront surgical intervention. Of the 40 patients, 29 (72.5%) were successfully stented. The remaining 11 (27.5%) patients who failed endoscopic stenting required immediate emergency surgery to relieve the obstruction. Patients who failed endoscopic stenting had worse complications than those patients who had their stents successfully inserted [odds ratio (OR), 23.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.29-250.00, P=0.004]. Patients who underwent emergency surgery had a longer median length of stay than patients who had successful endoscopic stenting (P=0.003). The patients that underwent successful stenting had earlier commencement of chemotherapy compared to those who had upfront surgery (P=0.02). There was no difference in stoma creation rates between patients who had emergency surgery versus those who were successfully stented. CONCLUSIONS: Stenting is a safe option in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer presenting with acute large bowel obstruction. Earlier commencement of chemotherapy occurs in patients who were successfully stented. Patients who failed stenting have equivalent outcomes to those who undergone upfront emergency surgery.

Obstructive Ileocolitis in Patients With Obstructed Colorectal Cancer - A Matched Case Control Study.

PURPOSE: Obstructive ileocolitis is an ulcero-inflammatory condition which typically occurs in the ileum or colon proximal to an obstructing colorectal lesion. If left unresolved, it often leads to intestinal perforation. We present a matched case control study of patients with obstructive ileocolitis caused by colorectal cancer to determine if any factors can predict this condition. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 21 patients with obstructive colorectal cancer and histologically proven obstructive ileocolitis from 2005 to 2015 matched for age and sex with 21 controls with obstructing colorectal cancer without obstructive ileocolitis. RESULTS: The 21 patients with obstructive ileocolitis had a median age of 71 years (range, 52-86 years). The most common presenting symptom was abdominal pain (n = 16, 76.2%), followed by vomiting/nausea (n = 14, 66.7%) and abdominal distension (n = 12, 57.1%). Interestingly, the radiological feature of pneumatosis intestinalis was noted in only 1 case. No significant differences were observed in baseline comorbidities, clinical presentations, or tumor characteristics between the 2 groups. Patients with obstructive ileocolitis were found to have a significantly higher total leucocyte count (17.1 ± 9.4×109/L vs. 12.0 ± 6.8×109/L, P = 0.016), lower pCO2 (32.3 ± 8.2 mmHg vs. 34.8 ± 4.9 mmHg, P = 0.013), lower HCO3 (18.8 ± 4.5 mmol/L vs. 23.6 ± 2.7 mmol/L, P < 0.001), lower base excess (-6.53 ± 5.32 mmol/L vs. -0.57 ± 2.99 mmol/L, P < 0.001) and higher serum lactate levels (3.14 ± 2.19 mmol/L vs. 1.19 ± 0.91 mmol/L, P = 0.007) compared to controls. No radiological features were predictive of obstructive ileocolitis. CONCLUSION: Patients with obstructive ileocolitis tend to present with metabolic acidosis with respiratory compensation, raised lactate, and worse leucocytosis. Radiological features are not useful for predicting this condition.

Screening in spouses of colorectal cancer patients: a missed opportunity.

BACKGROUND: Spouses of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients could be at increased risk of developing CRC due to shared lifestyle habits with the patients which is a notable risk factor. This study explores the various issues surrounding CRC screening among these spouses. METHODS: A mixed method study comprising in-depth qualitative semi-structured interviews followed by structured quantitative questionnaire was administered to spouses who accompanied CRC patients during their appointments, from January 2016 to February 2017. RESULTS: Fifty spouses of CRC patients, median age of 60 (range, 41-82) years, were qualitatively interviewed but 5 of them did not complete the questionnaire. Only 26 (57.8%) of them were current with CRC screening. Data saturation was reached at the 48th participant. Four main themes emerged from the qualitative interviews. These included (i) adequacy of knowledge and attitudes about CRC screening, (ii) suboptimal public health promotion efforts of CRC screening, (iii) barriers of CRC screening, and (iv) need for mutual spousal support. From the questionnaires, spouses who were not current with CRC screening were more likely to report more barriers and have different cues to actions than those who are current. The majority of the spouses demonstrated high levels of knowledge on CRC, understood its severity and their susceptibility. CONCLUSION: Spouses exhibit high levels of knowledge and awareness of the implications of CRC. Apart from addressing psychological issues during the acute phases, targeted interventions should be considered to improve their screening rates and to use them as advocates for CRC screening among family and community.

Getting the first degree relatives to screen for colorectal cancer is harder than it seems-patients' and their first degree relatives' perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: First degree relatives (FDR) of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are at increased risk of CRC compared to the general population. However, screening colonoscopy rates amongst the FDRs remain dismal. The aim of the study was to explore the various issues amongst the patients and their FDR precluding their adoption of screening colonoscopy. METHODS: A qualitative study of CRC patients and their FDRs was performed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants using open-ended questions until data saturation was achieved. These qualitative data were then thematically analysed. RESULTS: Fifty CRC patients and thirty-one FDRs were recruited between June 2015 and December 2015. For the patients, three main themes emerged, which include (i) poor understanding of the CRC screening guidelines for their FDRs, (ii) recommendations are lacking amongst medical professionals and (iii) numerous barriers are hindering patients from being advocates for screening colonoscopy for their FDRs. For the FDRs, three main themes emerged. These include (i) poor understanding of the exact CRC screening guidelines amongst the FDRs, (ii) the lack of health promotion efforts amongst medical professionals and (iii) barriers to the uptake of screening colonoscopy such as fear of colonoscopy, high cost of the procedure, its associated inconvenience and perceived invulnerability of the individual. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and FDRs are not aware of the increased risks of developing CRC amongst the family members. Guidelines regarding screening are also not clearly understood. The numerous barriers that are present amongst the CRC patients and their FDRs can be addressed.

Endoscopic Stenting Does Not Worsen Long Term Outcomes Amongst Patients Presenting with Obstruction from Colorectal Cancers.

BACKGROUND: Stenting has been increasingly adopted in colorectal cancer patients presenting with acute large bowel obstruction. However, long-term outcomes of stenting are lacking in the literature. Our study attempts to compare the long-term outcomes of colonic stenting and emergency surgery amongst left-sided colorectal cancer patients presenting with acute large bowel obstruction. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who presented with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer who underwent either endoscopic stenting or emergency surgery for acute large bowel obstruction was performed from January 2007 to April 2016. Patients were analysed in an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Forty-seven (46.1%) patients underwent emergency surgery, whereas 55 (53.9%) underwent colonic stenting with a technical success rate of 71.0%. Patients who underwent emergency surgery were more likely to develop severe complications compared with patients who underwent successful colonic stenting, but the difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR] 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-11.3, p = 0.139). Patients were followed up for a median of 48.3 months (3.1-111) in the stenting group and 51.2 months (1.2-117.1) in the emergency surgery group. Recurrence rates between colonic stenting and emergency surgery were similar (25.6% vs. 21.3%, p = 0.500), with more anastomotic and peritoneal recurrences were noted in the emergency surgery group. 5 year disease free survival (77% vs. 73%, p = 0.708) and overall survival (86% vs. 62%, p = 0.064) also were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent endoscopic stenting for large bowel obstruction have comparable long-term outcomes as those who undergo emergency surgery. The role of endoscopic stenting in obstructed colorectal cancers merits further evaluation.

Unilateral Pelvic Side-Wall Lymph Node Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Review of the Anatomy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this video is to highlight key safety and critical techniques employed during laparoscopic pelvic side-wall lymph node resection for rectal cancer. In addition, a review of the key pelvic side-wall anatomical structures will be included. METHODS: We report a case of a 50-year-old Chinese female who presented with per-rectal bleeding, with colonoscopy revealing a 1.5 cm moderately differentiated rectal adenocarcinoma 4 cm above the anorectal junction. Initial staging scans did not reveal any pelvic lymphadenopathy or distant metastasis and the patient underwent laparoscopic ultra-low anterior resection with concurrent total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and natural orifice specimen extraction (NOTES) with defunctioning ileostomy. Final histology confirmed the diagnosis of moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma classified as pT1N0, resection R0. Subsequent follow-up detected a serial increase in carcinoembryonic antigen levels, and further investigations detected a 1.6 cm fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-avid right external iliac lymph node. RESULTS: Adhesiolysis was performed, and key structures in the right pelvic side-wall, such as the ureter, umbilical and gonadal vessels, external iliac vein, obturator artery, nerve and lymph nodes, and internal and external iliac artery, were identified. The right external iliac lymph node was dissected and extracted for histological examination. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic pelvic side-wall lymph node dissection for rectal cancer is a good technique to employ when investigating and obtaining FDG-avid lymph nodes. Key structures will need to be identified during dissection to prevent any injuries.

Long-term outcome following advancement flaps for high anal fistulas in an Asian population: a single institution's experience.

BACKGROUND: The management of high anal fistula is often complicated and challenging. In spite of numerous new techniques, the advancement flap technique remained an integral procedure in its management. The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term outcome of advancement flap procedures for high anal fistulas. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who have undergone an advancement flap procedure for high anal fistula of cryptoglandular origin from June 2003 to April 2012 was performed. Patients were contacted via telephone to evaluate their continence status using the Wexner score. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients with a median age of 48 (range, 19-74) years and a median follow-up of 6.5 (range, 1-59) months were evaluated. Fifty-three (86.9 %) patients had successful surgery while 8 (13.1 %) failed the procedure. Four of them underwent subsequent surgery. Of the 53 patients who had a successful procedure, 27 were successfully contacted for a telephone interview. Twenty-one (77.8 %) of them reported a Wexner score of '0'. Two (7.4 %) patients had a Wexner score of <4, another 2 had a score of '4' and '10', while the last 2 patients had a score of >10. CONCLUSION: Advancement flap procedure is effective in the management of high anal fistulas with an acceptable success rate. The majority of the patients experienced good anal continence.

Patients who failed endoscopic stenting for left-sided malignant colorectal obstruction suffered the worst outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Reported outcomes of patients followed failed endoscopic stenting for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction remained lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the outcomes between endoscopic stenting and emergency surgery in patients with acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction and to identify factors that predict failed stenting. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients with acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction in the National University Hospital, Singapore was performed. RESULTS: From January 2007 to October 2013, 165 patients, with a median age of 68 years (range, 25-96), formed the study group. Sixty-nine (41.8 %) patients underwent immediate surgery. Endoscopic stenting was attempted in 96 (58.2 %) patients and was successful in 76 (79.2 %). The remaining 20 (20.8 %) failed the procedure and were operated immediately. Three of the patients who were successfully stented but did not improve clinically also required emergency surgery. Patients that failed stenting were 13.3 (95 % confidence interval (CI), 3.61-48.8; p < 0.001) times more likely to develop severe adverse events than those who were successfully stented. The group of patients who failed stenting was also 3.3 (95 % CI, 1.19-9.20; p = 0.026) times more likely to develop severe adverse events than those operated immediately. The only factor that predicted failure of stenting was a more acute angulation between the tumour and the distal lumen. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who failed endoscopic stenting fared worse than those who were successfully stented and also those who underwent emergency surgery upfront. Identification of factors that predict failures may be vital to minimise morbidity in these high-risk patients.