Treatment techniques for rectovaginal fistulas after low rectal resection for deep endometriosis.

Endometriosis is a benign gynecologic affection that may lead to major surgeries, such as colorectal resections. Rectovaginal fistulas (RVF) are among the possible complications. When they occur, it is necessary to adapt the repair surgery as best as possible to limit their functional consequences. This video shows three different techniques for correcting RVF after rectal resection for endometriosis, with a combination of perineal surgery and laparoscopy: a mucosal flap, a transanal transection and single stapled anastomosis (TTSS) and a pull through. Supplementary file1 (MP4 469658 KB).

Learning curve for robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicentre, prospective study.

AIM: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is becoming increasingly important in colorectal surgery. Recognition of the short, safe learning curve (LC) could potentially improve implementation. We evaluated the extent and safety of the LC in robotic resection for rectal cancer. METHOD: Consecutive rectal cancer resections (January 2018 to February 2021) were prospectively included from three French centres, involving nine surgeons. LC analyses only included surgeons who had performed more than 25 robotic rectal cancer surgeries. The primary endpoint was operating time LC and the secondary endpoint conversion rate LC. Interphase comparisons included demographic and intraoperative data, operating time, conversion rate, pathological specimen features and postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: In 174 patients (69% men; mean age 62.6 years) the mean operating time was 334.5 ± 92.1 min. Operative procedures included low anterior resection (n = 143) and intersphincteric resection (n = 31). For operating time, there were two or three (centre-dependent) LC phases. After 12-21 cases (learning phase), there was a significant decrease in total operating time (all centres) and an increase in the number of harvested lymph nodes (two centres). For conversion rate, there were two or four LC phases. After 9-14 cases (learning phase), the conversion rate decreased significantly in two centres; in one centre, there was a nonsignificant decrease despite the treatment of significantly more obese patients and patients with previous abdominal surgery. There were no significant differences in interphase comparisons. CONCLUSION: The LC for RAS in rectal cancer was achieved after 12-21 cases for the operating time and 9-14 cases for the conversion rate. RAS for rectal cancer was safe during this time, with no interphase differences in postoperative complications and circumferential resection margin.

Low-pressure versus standard pressure laparoscopic colorectal surgery (PAROS trial): a phase III randomized controlled trial.

TRIAL DESIGN: This is a phase III, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: In this trial, patients with laparoscopic colectomy were assigned to either low pressure (LP: 7 mmHg) or standard pressure (SP: 12 mmHg) at a ratio of 1 : 1. The aim of this trial was to assess the impact of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic colectomy on postoperative recovery. The primary endpoint was the duration of hospital stay. The main secondary endpoints were postoperative pain, consumption of analgesics and postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: Some 138 patients were enrolled, of whom 11 were excluded and 127 were analysed: 62 with LP and 65 with SP. Duration of hospital stay (3 versus 4 days; P = 0.010), visual analog scale (0.5 versus 2.0; P = 0.008) and analgesic consumption (level II: 73 versus 88 per cent; P = 0.032; level III: 10 versus 23 per cent; P = 0.042) were lower with LP. Morbidity was not significantly different between the two groups (10 versus 17 per cent; P = 0.231). CONCLUSION: Using low-pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic colonic resection improves postoperative recovery, shortening the duration of hospitalization and decreasing postoperative pain and analgesic consumption. This suggests that low pressure should become the standard of care for laparoscopic colectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03813797.

The aim of this trial was to assess the impact of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic colectomy. The study proved that using low pressure in laparoscopic colonic resection improves postoperative recovery, decreasing length of hospitalization, postoperative pain and analgesic consumption.

Local recurrence after local excision of early rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of completion TME, adjuvant (chemo)radiation, or no additional treatment.

BACKGROUND: The risks of local recurrence and treatment-related morbidity need to be balanced after local excision of early rectal cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine oncological outcomes after local excision of pT1-2 rectal cancer followed by no additional treatment (NAT), completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) or adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy (aCRT). METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was local recurrence. Statistical analysis included calculation of the weighted average of proportions. RESULTS: Some 73 studies comprising 4674 patients were included in the analysis. Sixty-two evaluated NAT, 13 cTME and 28 aCRT. The local recurrence rate for NAT among low-risk pT1 tumours was 6·7 (95 per cent c.i. 4·8 to 9·3) per cent. There were no local recurrences of low-risk pT1 tumours after cTME or aCRT. The local recurrence rate for high-risk pT1 tumours was 13·6 (8·0 to 22·0) per cent for local excision only, 4·1 (1·7 to 9·4) per cent for cTME and 3·9 (2·0 to 7·5) per cent for aCRT. Local recurrence rates for pT2 tumours were 28·9 (22·3 to 36·4) per cent with NAT, 4 (1 to 13) per cent after cTME and 14·7 (11·2 to 19·0) per cent after aCRT. CONCLUSION: There is a substantial risk of local recurrence in patients who receive no additional treatment after local excision, especially those with high-risk pT1 and pT2 rectal cancer. The lowest recurrence risk is provided by cTME; aCRT has outcomes comparable to those of cTME for high-risk pT1 tumours, but shows a higher risk for pT2 tumours.

ANTECEDENTES: Tras una resección temprana de un cáncer de recto localizado, hay que considerar el equilibrio entre el riesgo de recidiva local y la morbilidad relacionada con el tratamiento. El objetivo de este metaanálisis era determinar los resultados oncológicos tras la resección de un cáncer de recto pT1-T2 seguida de ningún tratamiento adicional (no additional treatment, NAT), escisión total del mesorrecto (completion total mesorectal excision, cTME) o quimiorradioterapia adyuvante (adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, aCRT). METHODS: Se llevó a cabo una búsqueda sistemática en PubMed, Embase y biblioteca Cochrane. La variable principal de resultado era la recidiva local (local recurrence, LR). En el análisis estadístico se calcularon las medias ponderadas de proporciones. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron en el análisis 76 estudios con un total de 4.793 pacientes. NAT fue evaluada en 72 estudios, cTME en 13 y aCRT en 28. La tasa de LR para NAT en tumores pT1 de bajo riesgo era de 6,7% (i.c. del 95% 4,8-9,3). No se observaron casos de LR en tumores pT1 de bajo riesgo tras cTME o aCRT. La tasa de LR para tumores pT1 de alto riesgo fue de 13,6% (i.c. del 95% 8,0-22,0) para la resección local como único tratamiento, 4,1% (i.c. del 95% 1,7-9,4) para cTME y 3,9% (i.c. del 95% 2,0-7,5) para aCRT. La tasa de LR para tumores pT2 fue de 28,9% (i.c. del 95% 22,3-36,4) para NAT, 4,3% (i.c. del 95% 1,4-12,5) para cTME y 14,7% (i.c. del 95% 11,2-19,0) para aCRT. CONCLUSIÓN: Tras la resección local de cáncer pT1 de alto riesgo y pT2, existe un riesgo sustancial de recidiva local en ausencia de tratamiento adicional. La escisión total del mesorrecto se asocia con el menor riesgo de recidiva. La quimiorradioterapia adyuvante ofrece resultados similares a la escisión total del mesorrecto en tumores pT1 de alto riesgo, pero presenta un mayor riesgo en tumores pT2.

International variation in managing locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer: prospective benchmark analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tumour extension beyond the mesorectal plane (ymrT4) occurs in 5-10 per cent of patients with rectal cancer and 10 per cent of patients develop locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) after primary surgery. There is global variation in healthcare delivery for these conditions. METHODS: An international benchmark trial of the management of ymrT4 tumours and LRRC was undertaken in France and Australia between 2015 and 2017. Heterogeneity in management and operative decision-making were analysed by comparison of surgical resection rates, blinded intercountry reading of pelvic MRI, quality-of-life assessment and qualitative evaluations. RESULTS: Among 154 patients (97 in France and 57 in Australia), 31·8 per cent had ymrT4 disease and 68·2 per cent LRRC. The surgical resection rates were 88 and 79 per cent in France and Australia respectively (P = 0·112). The concordance in operative planning was low (κ = 0·314); the rate of pelvic exenteration was lower in France than Australia both in clinical practice (36 of 78 versus 34 of 40; P < 0·001) and in theoretical conditions (10 of 25 versus 50 of 57; P = 0·002). The R0 resection rate was lower in France than Australia for LRRC (25 of 49 versus 18 of 21; P = 0·007) but not for ymrT4 tumours (21 of 26 versus 15 of 15; P = 0·139). Morbidity rates were similar. Patients who underwent non-exenterative procedures had higher scores on the mental functioning subscale at 12 months (P = 0·047), and a lower level of distress at 6 months (P = 0·049). Qualitative analysis highlighted five categories of psychosocial factors influencing treatment decisions: patient, strategy, specialist, organization and culture. CONCLUSION: This international benchmark trial has highlighted the differences in worldwide treatment of locally advanced and LRRC. Standardized care should improve outcomes for these patients.

ANTECEDENTES: La extensión del tumor más allá del plano del meso-rrecto (ymrT4) ocurre en el 5-10% de los pacientes con cáncer de recto y el 10% de los pacientes desarrollan recidiva local del cáncer de recto (locally recurrent rectal cáncer, LRRC) después de una cirugía primaria. Existe una variación global en la prestación de la asistencia sanitaria para esta pato-logía. MÉTODOS: Se realizó un ensayo de referencia internacional sobre el manejo de ymrT4 y LRRC en Francia y Australia entre 2015 y 2017. La heterogeneidad en el manejo y la toma de decisiones quirúrgicas se analizaron mediante la comparación de las tasas de resección quirúrgica, la lectura a ciegas de la resonancia magnética (RM) pélvica entre países, la evaluación de la calidad de vida y las evaluaciones cualitativas. RESULTADOS: De 154 pacientes (97 en Francia versus 57 en Australia), el 32% tenía ymrT4 y el 68% tenía cáncer de recto con recidiva local. Las tasas de resección quirúrgica fueron del 87,6% versus 77,8% (P = 0,112). La tasa de concordancia en la decisión quirúrgica fue baja (coeficiente kappa = 0,314) con una tasa más baja de exenteración pélvica en Francia, tanto en la práctica clínica (46% versus 85%; P < 0,0001) como en condiciones teóricas (40% versus 88%; P = 0,002). La tasa de resección R0 fue menor en Francia para la LRRC (51% versus 86%, P = 0,007) pero no para el ymrT4 (81% versus 100%, P = 0,139). Las tasas de morbilidad fueron similares. Los pacientes que se sometieron a procedimientos no exenterativos tuvieron una subescala de funcionamiento mental más alta a los 12 meses (P = 0,04) y un nivel de angustia más bajo a los 6 meses (P = 0,04). El análisis cualitativo destacó 5 categorías de factores psicosociales que afectaron a la decisión del tratamiento: paciente, estrategia, especialista, organización y cultura. CONCLUSIÓN: Este ensayo de referencia internacional destaca las diferencias en el tratamiento mundial del cáncer de recto localmente avanzado y de la LRR. La aten-ción estandarizada debería mejorar los resultados para estos pacientes.

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: the risk is functional rather than oncological. A 25-year experience from Bordeaux.

AIM: There are few data evaluating the long-term outcomes of intersphincteric resection (ISR), especially the impact of inclusion of more juxtapositioned and intra-anal tumours on oncological and functional outcomes. We compared the oncological and functional results of patients treated by total mesorectal excision and ISR for low rectal cancer over a 25-year period. METHOD: This is a retrospective study from a single institution evaluating results of ISR over three periods: 1990-1998, 1999-2006 and 2007-2014. Patients treated by partial or total ISR, with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, for low rectal cancer (≤ 6 cm from the anal verge) were included. We compared postoperative morbidity, quality of surgery and oncological and functional outcomes in the time periods studied. RESULTS: Of 813 patients operated on for low rectal cancer, 303 had ISR. Tumour stage did not differ; however, the distance of the tumour from the anorectal junction decreased from 1 to 0 cm (P < 0.001) and the distal resection margin shortened from 25 to 10 mm (P < 0.001) from 1990 to 2014. The postoperative morbidity and quality of surgery did not change significantly over time. The 5-year local recurrence (4.3% vs 5.9% vs 3.5%; P = 0.741) and disease-free survival (72% vs 71% vs 75%; P = 0.918) did not differ between the three time periods. Functional results improved during the last period; however, overall 42% of patients experienced major bowel dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Pushing the envelope of sphincter-saving resection in ultra-low rectal cancer reaching or invading the anal sphincter did not compromise oncological and functional outcomes. The main limitation of the ISR procedure appears to be functional rather than oncological, suggesting that bowel rehabilitation programmes should be developed.

Delayed coloanal anastomosis: an alternative option for restorative rectal cancer surgery after high-dose pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

AIM: Restorative total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer after high-dose pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer has been reported to provide an unacceptable rate of pelvic sepsis. In a previous publication we proposed that delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) should be performed in this situation. The present study aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of this strategy. METHOD: Between 2000 and 2018, 1094 men were operated on for rectal cancer in our institution. All men with T2/T3 mid and low rectal cancer with preoperative radiotherapy and restorative TME were considered for this study (n = 416). Patients with external-beam high-dose radiotherapy (EBHRT) for prostate cancer (70-78 Gy) were identified and compared with patients with conventional long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by TME. We compared our already published historical cohort (2000-2012), including arm A (CRT + TME; n = 236) and arm B (EBHRT + TME; n = 12), with our early cohort (2013-2018), including arm C (CRT + TME; n = 158) and arm D (EBHRT + TME-DCAA; n = 10). The end-points were morbidity, pelvic sepsis, reoperation rate and quality of the specimen. RESULTS: Overall morbidity was not significantly different between groups. Pelvic sepsis decreased from 50% (arm B) to 10% (arm D) with the use of DCAA (P = 0.074), and was similar between arms A, C and D. Quality of the specimen was not significantly different between the four groups. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that TME with DCAA in patients with previous EBHRT is feasible, with the same postoperative pelvic sepsis rate as conventional CRT.

The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival and recurrence after curative rectal cancer surgery in patients who are histologically node negative after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether adjuvant chemotherapy will affect recurrence rate or disease-free and overall survival in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who were staged with MRI node-positive disease (mrN+) preoperatively. These patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with curative rectal cancer surgery and their pathological staging was negative for nodal disease (ypN0). There is no consensus on the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in such patients. METHOD: Patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and underwent curative rectal cancer surgery for rectal adenocarcinoma staged as [mrTxN+M0] on MRI staging and who on pathological staging were found to be [ypTxN0M0] were retrospectively identified from January 2008 December 2012 from two tertiary referral centres (Royal Marsden Hospital, London and Saint-Andre Hospital, Bordeaux). RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-three patients were recruited and, after propensity matching at a ratio of 2:1, n = 80 patients were divided to receive adjuvant (n = 28) or no adjuvant treatment (n = 52). A comparison of adjuvant chemotherapy vs no adjuvant therapy showed that the mean overall survival was 2.67 vs 3.60 years (P = 0.42) and disease-free survival was 2.27 vs 3.32 years (P = 0.14). CONCLUSION: This study found no significant difference in survival or disease recurrence between patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and patients who did not. There is no clear evidence to support or dismiss the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients who were node positive on preoperative MRI and node negative on histopathological staging. Further multicentre prospective randomized trials are needed to identify the appropriate treatment regime for this group of patients.

The risk of definitive stoma formation at 10 years after low and ultralow anterior resection for rectal cancer.

AIM: The long-term risk of definitive stoma after sphincter-saving resection (SSR) for rectal cancer is underestimated and has never been reported for ultralow conservative surgery. We report the 10-year risk of definitive stoma after SSR for low rectal cancer. METHOD: From 1994 to 2008, patients with low rectal cancer who were suitable for SSR were analysed retrospectively. Patients were divided into the following four groups: low colorectal anastomosis (LCRA); coloanal anastomosis (CAA); partial intersphincteric resection (pISR); and total intersphincteric resection (tISR). The end-point was the risk of a definitive stoma according to the type of anastomosis. RESULTS: During the study period, 297 patients had SSR for low rectal cancer. The incidence of definitive stoma increased from 11% at 1 year to 22% at 10 years. The reasons were no closure of the loop ileostomy (4.7%), anastomotic morbidity (6.5%), anal incontinence (8%) and local recurrence (5.2%). The risk of definitive stoma was not influenced by type of surgery: 26% vs 18% vs 18% vs 19% (P = 0.578) for LCRA, CAA, pISR and tISR, respectively. Independent risk factors for definitive stoma were age > 65 years and surgical morbidity. CONCLUSION: The risk of a definitive stoma after SSR increased two-fold between 1 and 10 years after surgery, from 11% to 22%. Ultralow conservative surgery (pISR and tISR) did not increase the risk of definitive stoma compared with conventional CAA or LCRA.

Surgery for rectal cancer after high-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer: is sphincter preservation relevant?

AIM: The feasibility and outcome of sphincter-saving resection for rectal cancer were assessed in patients previously treated by high-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer. METHOD: Between 2000 and 2012, 1066 patients underwent rectal excision for rectal cancer. Of these, 236 were treated by conventional radiotherapy (45 Gy) and sphincter-saving resection (Group A) and 12 were treated by external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer (70 Gy) and sphincter-saving resection (Group B) of whom five had a metachronous and seven a synchronous cancer. The end-points were surgical morbidity, pelvic sepsis, reoperation and definitive stoma. RESULTS: Tumour characteristics were similar in both groups. Surgical morbidity (67% vs 25%, P = 0.004), anastomotic leakage (50% vs 10%, P = 0.001, and reoperation (50% vs 17%, P = 0.011) were significantly higher in Group B. Multivariate analyses showed that EBRT for prostate cancer was the only independent factor for anastomotic leakage (OR = 5.12; 95% CI 1.45-18.08; P = 0.011) and definitive stoma (OR = 10.56; 95% CI 3.02-39.92; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: High-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer increases morbidity from rectal surgery and the risk of a permanent stoma. This suggests that a delayed coloanal anastomosis or a Hartmann procedure should be proposed as an alternative to low anterior resection in this population.

Short- and long-term impact of body mass index on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

AIM: Obesity is associated with increased technical difficulty in laparoscopic surgery. However, its impact has been measured mainly for colectomy but not specifically for rectal excision. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of body mass index (BMI) on technical feasibility and oncological outcome of laparoscopic rectal excision for cancer. METHOD: A total of 490 patients treated by laparoscopic rectal excision for rectal cancer from January 1999 to June 2010 were included. Seventy per cent had had preoperative radiochemotherapy. Patients were separated into four groups according to BMI (kg/m(2) ): < 20, 20-25, 25-30 and ≥ 30. The impact of BMI on conversion, surgical morbidity, quality of excision (Quirke mesorectal grade and circumferential resection margin) and long-term oncological outcome was determined. RESULTS: Among the 490 patients BMI was < 20 in 43, 20-25 in 223, 25-30 in 177 and ≥ 30 in 47. Mortality (overall 1%) and morbidity (overall 19%) were similar between the groups. Conversion in the four groups was 5%, 14%, 23% and 32% (P = 0.001). The quality of mesorectal excision and circumferential margins did not differ between the groups. The 5-year local recurrence rates (0%, 4.6%, 5.3% and 5.9% respectively; P = 0.823) and the overall and disease-free survival were not significantly influenced by BMI. CONCLUSION: In laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, BMI influenced the risk of conversion but not surgical morbidity, quality of surgery and survival. This suggests that all patients, including obese patients, are suitable for laparoscopic surgery.

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs open surgery approach.

AIM: Laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery has been investigated for rectal cancer but not for tumours of the lower third. We evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. METHOD: From 1990 to 2007, patients with rectal tumour below 6 cm from the anal verge and treated by open or laparoscopic curative intersphincteric resection were included in a retrospective comparative study. Surgery included total mesorectal excision with internal sphincter excision and protected low coloanal anastomosis. Neoadjuvant treatment was given to patients with T3 or N+ tumours. Recurrence and survival were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the Logrank test. Function was assessed using the Wexner continence score. RESULTS: Intersphincteric resection was performed in 175 patients with low rectal cancer: 110 had laparoscopy and 65 had open surgery. The two groups were similar according to age, sex, body mass index, ASA score, tumour stage and preoperative radiotherapy. Postoperative mortality (zero) and morbidity (23%vs 28%; P = 0.410) were similar in both groups. There was no difference in 5-year local recurrence (5%vs 2%; P = 0.349) and 5-year disease-free survival (70%vs 71%; P = 0.862). Function and continence scores (11 vs 12; P = 0.675) were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Intersphincteric resection did not alter long-term tumour control of low rectal cancer. The safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic approach for intersphincteric resection are suggested by a similar short- and long-term outcome as obtained by open surgery.

Robotic-assisted right colectomy. Official expert recommendations delivered under the aegis of the French Association of Surgery (AFC).

Twenty-seven experts under the aegis of the French Association of Surgery (AFC) offer this reference system with formalized recommendations concerning the performance of right colectomy by robotic approach (RRC). For RRC, experts suggest patient installation in the so-called "classic" or "suprapubic" setup. For patients undergoing right colectomy for a benign pathology or cancer, RRC provides no significant benefit in terms of intra-operative blood loss, intra-operative complications or conversion rate to laparotomy compared to laparoscopy. At the same time, RRC is associated with significantly longer operating times. Data from the literature are insufficient to define whether the robot facilitates the performance of an intra-abdominal anastomosis, but the robotic approach is more frequently associated with an intra-abdominal anastomosis than the laparoscopic approach. Experts also suggest that RRC offers a benefit in terms of post-operative morbidity compared to right colectomy by laparotomy. No benefit is retained in terms of mortality, duration of hospital stay, histological results, overall survival or disease-free survival in RRC performed for cancer. In addition, RRC should not be performed based on the cost/benefit ratio, since RRC is associated with significantly higher costs than laparoscopy and laparotomy. Future research in the field of RRC should consider the evaluation of patient-targeted parameters such as pain or quality of life and the technical advantages of the robot for complex procedural steps, as well as surgical and oncological results.

Early and late morbidity of local excision after chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Local excision (LE) after chemoradiotherapy is a new option in low rectal cancer, but morbidity has never been compared prospectively with total mesorectal excision (TME). Early and late morbidity were compared in patients treated either by LE or TME after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. METHOD: This was a post-hoc analysis from a randomized trial. Patients with clinical T2/T3 low rectal cancer with good response to the chemoradiotherapy and having either LE, LE with eventual completion TME, or TME were considered. Early (1 month) and late (2 years) morbidities were compared between the three groups. RESULTS: There were no deaths following surgery in any of the three groups. Early surgical morbidity (20 per cent LE versus 36 per cent TME versus 43 per cent completion TME, P = 0.025) and late surgical morbidity (4 per cent versus 33 per cent versus 57 per cent, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the LE group than in the TME or the completion TME group. of LE, was associated with the lowest rate of early (10 versus 18 versus 21 per cent, P = 0.217) and late medical morbidities (0 versus 7 versus 7 per cent, P = 0.154), although this did not represent a significant difference between the groups. The severity of overall morbidity was significantly lower at 2 years after LE compared with TME or completion TME (4 versus 28 versus 43 per cent grade 3-5, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The rate of surgical complications after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in the LE group was half that of TME group at 1 month and 10 times lower at 2 years. LE is a safe approach for organ preservation and should be considered as an alternative to watch-and-wait in complete clinical responders and to TME in subcomplete responders.

A Reappraisal of Outcome of Elective Surgery After Successful Non-Operative Management of an Intra-Abdominal Abscess Complicating Ileocolonic Crohn's Disease: A Subgroup Analysis of a Nationwide Prospective Cohort.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Few prospective data exist on outcomes of surgery in Crohn's disease [CD] complicated by an intra-abdominal abscess after resolution of this abscess by antibiotics optionally combined with drainage. METHODS: From 2013 to 2015, all patients undergoing elective surgery for CD after successful non-operative management of an intra-abdominal abscess [Abscess-CD group] were selected from a nationwide multicentre prospective cohort. Resolution of the abscess had to be computed tomography/magnetic resonance-proven prior to surgery. Abscess-CD group patients were 1:1 matched to uncomplicated CD [Non-Penetrating-CD group] using a propensity score. Postoperative results and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Among 592 patients included in the registry, 63 [11%] fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The abscess measured 37 ±â€…20 mm and was primarily managed with antibiotics combined with drainage in 14 patients and nutritional support in 45 patients. At surgery, a residual fluid collection was found in 16 patients [25%]. Systemic steroids within 3 months before surgery [p = 0.013] and the absence of preoperative enteral support [p = 0.001] were identified as the two significant risk factors for the persistence of a fluid collection. After propensity score matching, there was no significant difference between the Abscess-CD and Non-Penetrating-CD groups in the rates of primary anastomosis [84% vs 90% respectively, p = 0.283], overall [28% vs 15% respectively, p = 0.077] and severe postoperative morbidity [7% vs 7% respectively, p = 1.000]. One-year recurrence rates for endoscopic recurrence were 41% in the Abscess-CD and 51% in the Non-Penetrating-CD group [p = 0.159]. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery after successful non-operative management of intra-abdominal abscess complicating CD provides good early and long-term outcomes.

Randomized trial comparing low-pressure versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic colectomy: PAROS trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy, by its minimally invasive nature, has revolutionized digestive and particularly colorectal surgery by decreasing post-operative pain, morbidity, and length of hospital stay. In this trial, we aim to assess whether low pressure in laparoscopic colonic surgery (7 mm Hg instead of 12 mm Hg) could further reduce pain, analgesic consumption, and morbidity, resulting in a shorter hospital stay. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PAROS trial is a phase III, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. We aim to recruit 138 patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. Participants will be randomly assigned to either a low-pressure group (7 mm Hg) or a standard-pressure group (12 mm Hg). The primary outcome will be a comparison of length of hospital stay between the two groups. Secondary outcomes will compare post-operative pain, consumption of analgesics, morbidity within 30 days, technical and oncological quality of the surgical procedure, time to passage of flatus and stool, and ambulation. All adverse events will be recorded. Analysis will be performed on an intention-to-treat basis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This research received the approval from the Committee for the Protection of Persons and was the subject of information to the ANSM. This search is saved in the ID-RCB database under registration number 2018-A03028-47. This research is retrospectively registered January 23, 2019, at http://clinicaltrials.gov/ed under the name "LaPAroscopic Low pRessure cOlorectal Surgery (PAROS)". This trial is ongoing.

Segmental Colectomy for Ulcerative Colitis: Is There a Place in Selected Patients Without Active Colitis? An International Multicentric Retrospective Study in 72 Patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim of this study was to report a multicentric experience of segmental colectomy [SC] in ulcerative colitis [UC] patients without active colitis, in order to assess if SC can or cannot represent an alternative to ileal pouch-anal anastomosis [IPAA]. METHODS: All UC patients undergoing SC were included. Postoperative complications according to ClavienDindo's classification, long term results, and risk factors for postoperative colitis and reoperation for colitis on the remnant colon, were assessed. RESULTS: A TOTAL OF: 72 UC patients underwent: sigmoidectomy [n = 28], right colectomy [n = 24], proctectomy [n = 11], or left colectomy [n = 9] for colonic cancer [n = 27], 'diverticulitis' [n = 17], colonic stenosis [n = 5], dysplasia or polyps [n = 8], and miscellaneous [n = 15]. Three patients died postoperatively and 5/69 patients [7%] developed early flare of UC within 3 months after SC. After a median followup of 40 months, 24/69 patients [35%] were reoperated after a median delay after SC of 19 months [range, 2-158 months]: 22/24 [92%] underwent total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis [n = 9] or total coloproctectomy [TCP] [n = 13] and 2/24 [8%] an additional SC. Reasons for reoperation were: colitis [n = 14; 20%], cancer [n = 3] or dysplasia [n = 3], colonic stenosis [n = 1], and unknown reasons [n = 3]. Endoscopic score of colitis before SC was Mayo 23 in 5/5 [100%] patients with early flare vs 15/42 without early flare [36%; p = 0.0101] and in 9/12 [75%] patients with reoperation for colitis vs 11/35 without reoperation [31%; p = 0.016]. CONCLUSIONS: After segmental colectomy in UC patients, postoperative early colitis is rare [7%]. Segmental colectomy could possibly represent an alternative to IPAA in selected UC patients without active colitis.

Surgical management of obstructive left colon cancer at a national level: Results of a multicentre study of the French Surgical Association in 1500 patients.

PURPOSE: Surgical management of obstructive left colon cancer (OLCC) is controversial. The objective is to report on postoperative and oncological outcomes of the different surgical options in patients operated on for OLCC. METHODS: From 2000-2015, 1500 patients were treated for OLCC in centers members of the French Surgical Association. Colonic stent (n=271), supportive care (n=5), palliative derivation (n=4) were excluded. Among 1220 remaining patients, 456 had primary diverting colostomy (PDC), 329 a segmental colectomy (SC), 246 a Hartmann's procedure (HP) and 189 a subtotal colectomy (STC) as first-stage surgery. Perioperative data and oncological outcomes were compared retrospectively. RESULTS: There was no difference between the 4 groups regarding gender, age, BMI and comorbidities. Postoperative mortality and morbidity were 4-27% (PDC), 6-47% (SC), 9-55% (HP), 13-60% (STC), respectively (P=0.005). Among the 431 living patients after PDC, 321 (70%) patients had their primary tumour removed. Cumulative mortality and morbidity favoured PDC (7-39%) and SC (6-40%) compared to HP (1-47%) and STC (13-50%) (P=0.04). At the end of follow-up definitive stoma rates were 39% (HP), 24% (PDC), 10% (SC), and 8% (STC) (P<0.0001). Five-year overall and disease-free survival was: SC (67-55%), PDC (54-48%), HP (54-37%) and STC (48-49%). After multivariate analysis, SC and PDC were associated with better prognosis compared to HP and STC. CONCLUSION: In OLCC, SC and PDC are the two preferred options in patients with good medical conditions. For patients with severe comorbidities PDC should be recommended, reserving HP and STC for patients with colonic ischaemia or perforation complicating malignant obstruction.