Low rectal resection for low rectal endometriosis and rectal adenocarcinoma: Are we discussing the same risks?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate and risk factors for anastomosis leakage in patients undergoing colorectal resection with low anastomosis for rectal endometriosis and rectal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study evaluating prospectively collected data was conducted. Patients undergoing colorectal resection for rectal endometriosis and rectal adenocarcinoma with low anastomosis (<7 cm from the anal verge [AV]) from September 2018 to January 2023 were included in the analysis. The main outcome was the rate of anastomosis leakage. A multivariate logistic regression was conducted to evaluate risk factors for anastomosis leakage in both groups. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients underwent colorectal resection with low anastomosis due to rectal endometriosis (n = 99) and rectal adenocarcinoma (n = 60). Patients with endometriosis were significantly younger than those with adenocarcinoma (35.7 ± 5.1 vs 63.7 ± 12.6; P = 0.001). The leakage rate was similar between the endometriosis (n = 12, 12.1%) and adenocarcinoma (n = 9, 15.0%) patients (P = 0.621). The anastomosis height less than 5 cm from the AV (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 12.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.24-23.54) was significantly associated with the anastomosis leakage. Protective stoma was associated with the decrease of the leakage risk (aOR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01-0.72). The type of disease (rectal endometriosis or adenocarcinoma) was not associated with the anastomosis leakage (aOR 2.87, 95% CI 0.34-21.23). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the different pathogenesis, the risk of anastomotic leakage was found to be similar between patients with low rectal endometriosis and those with rectal adenocarcinoma. These results must be considered by the gynecologist and colorectal surgeon to deliver proper information before rectal surgery for endometriosis.

Excision of Deep Rectovaginal Endometriosis Nodules with Large Infiltration of Both Rectum and Vagina: What Is a Reasonable Rate of Preventive Stoma? A Comparative Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare postoperative complications and rectovaginal fistula rate in women undergoing excision of large rectovaginal endometriosis requiring concomitant excision of rectum and vagina during 2 time periods with differing policies for preventive stoma confection. DESIGN: Retrospective before-and-after comparative cohort study on data prospectively recorded in a database. Patients managed from September 2018 to March 2020 (first period) were compared with those managed from April 2020 to June 2022 (second period). SETTING: Endometriosis Institute. PATIENTS: One hundred sixty-eight patients presenting with deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum and vagina, with lesions more than 3 cm in diameter during 2 consecutive time periods with differing policies regarding use of preventive stoma. INTERVENTIONS: Rectal disc excision or colorectal resection, concomitantly with large vaginal excision. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 87 and 81 women received surgery during the first and the second period, respectively, during which the rate of preventive stoma was, respectively, 32.2% and 8.6%. Deep rectovaginal nodule characteristics were comparable. The mean height (SD) of rectal sutures after disc excision and colorectal resection were, respectively, 6.5 cm (2.3 cm) and 7.2 cm (3.8 cm). Rectovaginal fistula was recorded in 17 patients, corresponding to an overall rate of 10.1%. The rates of rectovaginal fistula in the group of patients with and without preventive stoma, regardless of the period in which surgery was performed, were 11.4% and 9.8%, respectively (p = .76). The rates of fistula recorded during the first and the second period were, respectively, 9.2% and 11.1% (p = .80), and that of overall early main complications were 31% and 29.6% (p = .84). Regression logistic model identified an independent relationship between smoking and rectovaginal fistula (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-14) after adjustment for the period (adjusted OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.4-4.9 related to the second period), stoma confection (adjusted OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.5-7.1 related to stoma confection), robotic surgery (adjusted OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.3-10.1 related to robotic assistance), and type of rectal surgery (adjusted OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.1-1.4 related to disc excision when compared with colorectal resection). CONCLUSION: No statistically significant differences were found concerning risk of rectovaginal fistula in women with rectovaginal endometriosis requiring large rectal and vaginal excision after a decision to no longer routinely perform preventive stoma.

Disk Excision Using End-to-End Anastomosis Circular Stapler for Deep Endometriosis of the Rectum: A 492-Patient Continuous Prospective Series.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To report a large series including women managed by disk excision using end-to-end anastomosis (EEA) circular transanal stapler to assess the feasibility of the technique, the features of nodules suitable for removal by disk excision, and the rate of major early complications. DESIGN: Retrospective study on data prospectively recorded in 2 databases. SETTING: Two tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS: A total of 492 patients undergoing surgery for rectal endometriosis from May 2011 to June 2022. INTERVENTIONS: Rectal disk excision using the EEA stapler. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Disk excision using EEA was performed in 492 patients (24.2%) of 2,029 women receiving surgery for deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum during the 11-year study period. Deep endometriosis involved low rectum in 11% and mid rectum in 55.3%. The diameter of rectal nodules exceeded 3 cm in 65.9%. Mean operative time was 2 hours, mean diameter of rectal patches removed was 41 ± 11 mm, and the mean rectal suture height was 9.2 ± 5.5 cm. The presence of microscopic foci on the edges of rectal patches was identified in 30.2% of cases. Rectal fistula was recorded in 20 patients (4%). The distance from the anal verge was significantly lower in patients with fistula than women with no fistula (5.9 ± 2 cm vs 9.2 ± 5.6 cm, p = .027). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 120 months, with a median value of 36 months. Magnetic resonance imaging in 3 patients during follow-up revealed a recurrent nodule infiltrating the previous stapled line (0.6%) after a postoperative delay of, respectively, 36, 48, and 84 months. CONCLUSION: Disk excision using the EEA stapler is suitable in nodules >3 cm if surgeons ensure deep shaving of the rectum, to allow complete inclusion of the shaved area into the stapler jaws. Postoperative rectal recurrences seem incidental, whereas bowel leakage rate is comparable with that after colorectal resection. This technique is suitable in almost a quarter of patients managed for rectal endometriosis nodules and is therefore a valuable technique that warrants more widespread use.

Oncological strategy following R1 sphincter-saving resection in low rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy.

AIM: Sphincter-saving resection (SSR) for low rectal cancer remains challenging due to the high risk of positive resection margin (R1). Long-term outcomes and the dedicated oncological strategy are not well established in this situation. The aim of this study was to define the more appropriate strategy according to the patterns of recurrence. METHODS: Between 1994 and 2014, patients treated by SSR for low rectal cancer with preoperative chemoradiotherapy were included. Three types of recurrences were defined: local (LR), distant (DR) and mixed (MR). Recurrences and survival after R0 and R1 resection were analysed by Kaplan-Meier and compared with the log-rang test. RESULTS: Among 394 patients receiving SSR, 42 (10.6%) had R1 resection. Independent factors of R1 resection were EMVI (OR2.24,95%IC1.10-4.53,p = 0.025) and no tumor downstaging (OR8.41,95%IC2.50-8.32,p = 0.001). Both 5-year disease free and overall survival, and 5-year distant and local recurrence, were significantly worse after R1 resection. The overall recurrence after R1 resection was 57% (24/42), 7% had LR, 36% DR and 14% MR. Time to DR was shorter than time to LR (11.1 vs. 34.3) months. In all cases of MR, DR occurred before LR (12.1 vs. 34.3) months, meaning that after R1 resection, the first concern was DR. CONCLUSION: R1 resection after SSR for low rectal cancer reflects a more aggressive and systemic disease. Prognosis depends on DR in about 90% of cases, suggesting that pelvic control should not be the priority in the oncological strategy after R1. Adjuvant systemic chemotherapy ought to be preferred to salvage abdominoperineal resection.