Ostomy continence devices: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

AIM: Colostomy complication rates range widely from 10% to 70%. The psychological burden on patients, leading to lifestyle changes and decreased quality of life (QoL), is one of the largest factors. The aim of this work was to assess the history and efficacy of ostomy continence devices in improving continence and QoL. METHOD: In this PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and clinicaltrials.gov for studies on continence devices for all ostomies up to April 2023. Primary outcomes were continence and improvement in QoL. Secondary outcomes were leakage, patient's device preference and complications. Risk of Bias 2 and the revised tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-1) were used to assess risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was graded using GRADE. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies assessed devices from 1978 to 2022. The two main types identified were ball-valve devices and plug systems. Conseal and Vitala were the two main devices with significant evidence allowing for pooled analyses. Conseal, the only currently marketed device, had a pooled rate of continence of 67.4%, QoL improvement was 74.9%, patient preference over a traditional appliance was 69.1%, leakage was 10.1% and complications was 13.7%. Since 2011, five studies have investigated experimental devices on both human and animal models. CONCLUSION: Ostomy continence has been a long-standing goal without a consistently reliable solution. We propose that selective and short-term usage of continence devices may lead to improved continence and QoL in ostomy patients. Further research is needed to develop a reliable daily device for ostomy continence. Future investigation should include the needs of ileostomates.

Non-operative management of rectal cancer: Highlighting the controversies.

There remains much ambiguity on what non-operative management (NOM) of rectal cancer truly entails in terms of the methods to be adopted and the best algorithm to follow. This is clearly shown by the discordance between various national and international guidelines on NOM of rectal cancer. The main aim of the NOM strategy is organ preservation and avoiding unnecessary surgical intervention, which carries its own risk of morbidity. A highly specific and sensitive surveillance program must be devised to avoid patients undergoing unnecessary surgical interventions. In many studies, NOM, often interchangeably called the Watch and Wait strategy, has been shown as a promising treatment option when undertaken in the appropriate patient population, where a clinical complete response is achieved. However, there are no clear guidelines on patient selection for NOM along with the optimal method of surveillance.

Predictors of lymph node metastasis and survival in radically resected rectal neuroendocrine tumors: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rectal neuroendocrine tumors are uncommon tumor types. Lymph node metastases may occur in up to 40%, potentially impacting decision-making. We aimed to assess risk factors for lymph node metastases of rectal neuroendocrine tumors and their association with overall and cancer-specific survival. METHODS: This retrospective case-control study involved patients with stage I to III rectal neuroendocrine tumors who underwent radical resection. Data were derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2000-2020). Patients with pathologic evidence of lymph node metastases were compared to those without lymph node metastases for baseline patient and tumor characteristics. The main outcomes were lymph node metastases, overall survival, and cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: In total, 580 patients (50.9% male; mean age: 58.9 years) were included. The lymph node metastases rate was 37.1%. Independent predictors of lymph node metastases were Grade 2 neuroendocrine tumors (odds ratio: 8.06; P = .001), neuroendocrine carcinoma (odds ratio: 2.59, P = .006), large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (odds ratio: 4.89; P = .017), T2 tumors (odds ratio: 6.44; P < .001), T3 tumors (odds ratio: 27.5; P < .001), and T4 tumors (odds ratio: 17.3; P < .001). Lymph node metastases were associated with shorter restricted mean overall survival (40.8 vs 52.7 months; P < .001) and cancer-specific survival (41.3 vs 54.8 months; P < .001). When adjusted for other confounders, the nodal status of rectal neuroendocrine tumors was not independently associated with overall (hazard ratio = 1.56; P = .165) or cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio = 1.69; P = .158). Significant factors associated with worse overall survival and cancer-specific survival were age, tumor size, neuroendocrine carcinomas, large-cell neuroendocrine carcinomas, and the number of positive lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: Lymph node metastases of rectal neuroendocrine tumors were more likely associated with high-grade, large-sized, and T2 to T4 tumors. The number of involved lymph nodes was an independent predictor of overall and cancer-specific survival. Other independent survival predictors were tumor grade, size, and T stage.

Outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Transanal dissection is increasingly used in laparoscopic surgery for total mesorectal excision of lower rectal cancers. Several studies compared outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection, yet there is a paucity of high-quality evidence. This meta-analysis aimed to provide a pooled comparative analysis of outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection based on evidence from randomized controlled trials. METHODS: This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2022-compliant systematic review of randomized controlled trials compared laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through March 2023. The Medical Subject Headings terms used in the search were Rectal neoplasms, Proctectomy, Laparoscopy, and Transanal. The main outcomes included operative and pathologic outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias version 2 tool, and certainty of the evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The primary study outcome was conversion to open surgery. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials (1,339 patients; median age 61.2 years) were included; 671 patients underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection, and 668 underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision without transanal dissection. Both groups were similar in age, body mass index, and disease stage, but the laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection group had a higher male-to-female ratio, received neoadjuvant therapy and had a hand-sewn anastomosis more often. Patients who underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection had lower conversion rates (odds ratio = 0.179; P = .001), a higher likelihood of achieving complete total mesorectal excision (odds ratio = 1.435; P = .025), and fewer harvested lymph nodes (weighted mean difference = -1.926; P = .035). The groups had similar operative times (weighted mean difference = -3.476; P = .398), total complications (odds ratio = 0.94; P = .665), major complications (odds ratio = 1.112; P = .66), anastomotic leak (odds ratio = 0.67; P = .432), positive circumferential resection margin (odds ratio = 0.549; P = .155), and positive distal margins (odds ratio = 0.559; P = .171). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection was associated with lower odds of conversion to open surgery, greater likelihood of achieving complete total mesorectal excision, and fewer harvested lymph nodes than laparoscopic total mesorectal excision without transanal dissection.

Umbrella review of systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of using mesh in the prevention of parastomal hernias.

BACKGROUND: This umbrella review aimed to summarize the findings and conclusions of published systematic reviews on the prophylactic role of mesh against parastomal hernias in colorectal surgery. METHODS: PRISMA-compliant umbrella overview of systematic reviews on the role of mesh in prevention of parastomal hernias was conducted. PubMed and Scopus were searched through November 2023. Main outcomes were efficacy and safety of mesh. Efficacy was assessed by the rates of clinically and radiologically detected hernias and the need for surgical repair, while safety was assessed by the rates of overall complications. RESULTS: 19 systematic reviews were assessed; 7 included only patients with end colostomy and 12 included patients with either ileostomy or colostomy. The use of mesh significantly reduced the risk of clinically detected parastomal hernias in all reviews except one. Seven reviews reported a significantly lower risk of radiologically detected parastomal hernias with the use of mesh. The pooled hazards ratio of clinically detected and radiologically detected parastomal hernias was 0.33 (95%CI: 0.26-0.41) and 0.55 (95%CI: 0.45-0.68), respectively. Six reviews reported a significant reduction in the need for surgical repair when a mesh was used whereas six reviews found a similar need for hernia repair. The pooled hazards ratio for surgical hernia repair was 0.46 (95%CI: 0.35-0.62). Eight reviews reported similar complications in the two groups. The pooled hazard ratio of complications was 0.81 (95%CI: 0.66-1). CONCLUSIONS: The use of surgical mesh is likely effective and safe in the prevention of parastomal hernias without an increased risk of overall complications.

Predictors of nodal positivity in clinically under-staged patients with colon cancer: A National Cancer Database study and proposal of a predictive scoring system.

BACKGROUND: Colon cancer pathological and clinical staging may be disoncordant. This study assessed patients with colon cancer in whom the nodal status was clinically understaged. METHODS: Patients with stage I-III clinical node-negative colon cancer from the National Cancer Database were included. Regression analyses were conducted to elucidate risk factors for clinical nodal understaging and a scoring system was developed to identify high-risk patients. RESULTS: The study included 94,945 patients with 78.4 â€‹% of patients correctly staged and 21.6 â€‹% clinically understaged. The predictors of nodal positivity in clinically understaged patients were age <65 (OR 1.43), left-sided tumors (OR 1.41), elevated CEA (OR 2.03), moderately (OR 1.81) or poorly/undifferentiated tumors (OR 3.76), T1 tumors (OR 1.29), signet-ring cell histology (OR 2.26), and microsatellite-stable tumors (OR 1.4). CONCLUSION: Patients with colon cancer and the above factors are more likely to have their nodal status clinically understaged. A scoring system has been developed to identify high-risk patients.