SafeHeal Colovac Colorectal Anastomosis Protection Device evaluation (SAFE-2) pivotal study: an international randomized controlled study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Colovac Colorectal Anastomosis Protection Device.

AIM: Although proximal faecal diversion is standard of care to protect patients with high-risk colorectal anastomoses against septic complications of anastomotic leakage, it is associated with significant morbidity. The Colovac device (CD) is an intraluminal bypass device intended to avoid stoma creation in patients undergoing low anterior resection. A preliminary study (SAFE-1) completed in three European centres demonstrated 100% protection of colorectal anastomoses in 15 patients, as evidenced by the absence of faeces below the CD. This phase III trial (SAFE-2) aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the CD in a larger cohort of patients undergoing curative rectal cancer resection. METHODS: SAFE-2 is a pivotal, multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled trial. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the CD arm or the diverting loop ileostomy arm, with a recruitment target of 342 patients. The co-primary endpoints are the occurrence of major postoperative complications within 12 months of index surgery and the effectiveness of the CD in reducing stoma creation rates. Data regarding quality of life and patient's acceptance and tolerance of the device will be collected. DISCUSSION: SAFE-2 is a multicentre randomized, control trial assessing the efficacy and the safety of the CD in protecting low colorectal anastomoses created during oncological resection relative to standard diverting loop ileostomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05010850.

Risk factors for emergency surgery for diverticulitis: A retrospective multicentric French study at 41 hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The observed increase in the incidence of complicated diverticulitis may lead to the performance of more emergency surgeries. This study aimed to assess the rate and risk factors of emergency surgery for sigmoid diverticulitis. METHOD: The primary outcomes were the rate of emergency surgery for sigmoid diverticulitis and its associated risk factors. The urgent or elective nature of the surgical intervention was provided by the surgeon and in accordance with the indication for surgical treatment. A mixed logistic regression with a random intercept after multiple imputations by the chained equation was performed to consider the influence of missing data on the results. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2021, 6,867 patients underwent surgery for sigmoid diverticulitis in the participating centers, of which one-third (n = 2317) were emergency cases. In multivariate regression analysis with multiple imputation by chained equation, increasing age, body mass index <18.5 kg/m2, neurologic and pulmonary comorbidities, use of anticoagulant drugs, immunocompromised status, and first attack of sigmoid diverticulitis were independent risk factors for emergency surgery. The likelihood of emergency surgery was significantly more frequent after national guidelines, which were implemented in 2017, only in patients with a history of sigmoid diverticulitis attacks. CONCLUSION: The present study highlights a high rate (33%) of emergency surgery for sigmoid diverticulitis in France, which was significantly associated with patient features and the first attack of diverticulitis.

Impact of the first wave of COVID-19 epidemy on the surgical management of sigmoid diverticular disease in France: National French retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the surgical management of sigmoid diverticular disease (SDD) before, during, and after the first containment rules (CR) for the first wave of COVID-19. METHODS: From the French Surgical Association multicenter series, this study included all patients operated on between January 2018 and September 2021. Three groups were compared: A (before CR period: 01/01/18-03/16/20), B (CR period: 03/17/20-05/03/20), and C (post CR period: 05/04/20-09/30/21). RESULTS: A total of 1965 patients (A n = 1517, B n = 52, C n = 396) were included. The A group had significantly more previous SDD compared to the two other groups (p = 0.007), especially complicated (p = 0.0004). The rate of peritonitis was significantly higher in the B (46.1%) and C (38.4%) groups compared to the A group (31.7%) (p = 0.034 and p = 0.014). As regards surgical treatment, Hartmann's procedure was more often performed in the B group (44.2%, vs A 25.5% and C 26.8%, p = 0.01). Mortality at 90 days was significantly higher in the B group (9.6%, vs A 4% and C 6.3%, p = 0.034). This difference was also significant between the A and B groups (p = 0.048), as well as between the A and C groups (p = 0.05). There was no significant difference between the three groups in terms of postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the management of SDD was impacted by COVID-19 at CR, but also after and until September 2021, both on the initial clinical presentation and on postoperative mortality.

MRI restaging of rectal cancer: The RAC (Response-Anal canal-CRM) analysis joint consensus guidelines of the GRERCAR and GRECCAR groups.

PURPOSE: To develop guidelines by international experts to standardize data acquisition, image interpretation, and reporting in rectal cancer restaging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Evidence-based data and experts' opinions were combined using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method to attain consensus guidelines. Experts provided recommendations for reporting template and protocol for data acquisition were collected; responses were analysed and classified as "RECOMMENDED" versus "NOT RECOMMENDED" (if ≥ 80% consensus among experts) or uncertain (if < 80% consensus among experts). RESULTS: Consensus regarding patient preparation, MRI sequences, staging and reporting was attained using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. A consensus was reached for each reporting template item among the experts. Tailored MRI protocol and standardized report were proposed. CONCLUSION: These consensus recommendations should be used as a guide for rectal cancer restaging with MRI.

StomaCare: quality of life impact after enhanced follow-up of ostomy patients by a home healthcare nursing service-a multicentre, randomized, controlled trial.

AIM: A stoma exposes patients to several complications which could impair their quality of life (QoL). In the last decade, the market for stoma therapy in France has evolved, with a significant increase in the activities of home health providers, meeting a need for patient follow-up and companionship. International studies have demonstrated the impact of the stoma therapist (ST) follow-up on the improvement of an ostomy patient's QoL. However, the impact of home stoma nurse management has not been analysed. In this context we would like to assess the added value on health-related QoL from the enhanced follow-up of ostomy patients by STs. METHODS: This is a randomized, controlled, open, national and multicentre trial (12 centres) which includes patients with an ostomy who benefit from either standard follow-up or from an enhanced and personalized follow-up with, in particular, regular consultations with an ST after discharge. The primary end-point is the 3-month QoL score obtained from the Stoma-QoL questionnaire. The secondary end-points are satisfaction of the care, comparison of QoL scores (Stoma-QoL and EuroQuol EQ-5D) and the economic gains by calculating the consumption of resources between the two arms. There will be a modified intention-to-treat analysis with 6-month follow-up in both study arms. DISCUSSION: The StomaCare trial will be the first randomized controlled study in France to evaluate the impact on QoL of an enhanced follow-up at home of ostomy patients by an ST.

Ano-rectovaginal fistula after obstetrical anal sphincter injury: Diverting stoma does not improve the surgical results.

AIM: Ano-rectovaginal fistulas (ARVF) are challenging for the surgeon. Most of the series mix aetiologies, leading to confusion with respect to the conclusion. The aim of this study was to assess the factors associated with the success of ARVF management following obstetrical anal sphincter injury (OASIS). METHODS: This retrospective multicentric study included all the patients undergoing surgery for ARVF identified by the hospital codes. Patients for whom the aetiology of ARVF was not OASIS were excluded. The major outcome measure was the success of the procedure. RESULTS: Sixty patients with treated ARVF due to OASIS were identified. The success of overall management was 91.7%. Female patients underwent a mean of 2.5 (±1.7) procedures. A diverting stoma was formed in 29 patients (48.3%) of which 26 were closed at the end of the management period (89.7%). Of the 148 surgical procedures, only 55 were successful (37.2%). The order of the procedures (OR = 1.38; 95% CI: 0.75-2.51) or the diverting stoma (OR = 1.46; 95% CI: 0.31-6.91) were not significantly associated with the success of the surgery. However, Martius flap (OR = 4.13; 95% CI: 1.1-15.54) and Musset procedures (OR = 5.79; 95% CI: 1.77-18.87) produced better results than the endorectal advancement flap (ERAF). The other procedures did not show a significant correlation with management success. CONCLUSION: A diverting stoma is not mandatory in the management of ARVF due to OASIS to improve the success of the surgical procedure. While the Martius flap procedure offers better results, the ERAF procedure may be preferred as a primary intervention in the absence of sphincter injury as it is less invasive. In cases of residual sphincter injury, the Musset procedure is most likely to be the best option.

Acute urinary retention and urinary tract infection after short-course urinary drainage in colon or high rectum anastomoses: Post hoc analysis of a multicentre prospective database from the GRACE group.

AIM: The aim was to define the risk factors for acute urinary retention (AUR) and urinary tract infections (UTIs) in colon or high rectum anastomosis patients based on the absence of a urinary catheter (UC) or the early removal of the UC (<24 h). METHOD: This is a multicentre, international retrospective analysis of a prospective database including all patients undergoing colon or high rectum anastomoses. Patients were part of the enhanced recovery programme audit, developed by the Francophone Group for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery, and were included if no UC was inserted or if a UC was inserted for <24 h. RESULTS: In all, 9389 patients had colon or high rectum anastomoses using laparoscopy, open surgery or robotic surgery. Among these patients, 4048 were excluded because the UC was left in place >24 h (43.1%) and 97 were excluded because the management of UC was unknown (1%). Among the 5244 colon or high rectum anastomoses patients included, AUR occurred in 5.2% and UTI occurred in 0.7%. UCs were in place for <24 h in 2765 patients (52.7%) and 2479 did not have UCs in place (47.3%). Multivariate analysis showed that management of the UC was not significantly associated with the occurrence of AUR and that risk factors for AUR were male gender, ≥65 years old, having an American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥3 and receiving epidural analgesia. Conversely, being of male gender was a protective factor of UTI, while being ≥65 years old, having open surgery and receiving epidural analgesia were risk factors for UTIs. The management of the UC was not significantly associated with the occurrence of UTIs but the occurrence of AUR was a more significant risk factor for UTIs. CONCLUSION: UCs in place for <24 h did not reduce the occurrence of AUR or UTI compared to the absence of UCs.

Prehabilitation before major abdominal surgery: Evaluation of the impact of a perioperative clinical pathway, a pilot study.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Major abdominal surgery morbidity can reach 50%. Prehabilitation has shown promising results in decreasing complications. However, it is unknown if prehabilitation can have a positive effect specifically after major abdominal surgery. The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a prehabilitation program before major abdominal surgery. METHODS: All patients evaluated for major abdominal surgery between February and April 2018 were eligible. A 4-week trimodal prehabilitation program combining physical therapy, nutritional support and psychological preparation was set up. RESULTS: Among 106 patients evaluated for major abdominal surgery during the study period, 60 were included in the prehabilitation program. No cardiovascular events occurred during prehabilitation. The 6-min walking distance increased significantly (+45 m, increase of 9.3%, p = 0.008) after prehabilitation (and before the operation). Anxiety, depression, and several quality of life (QoL) items improved. Postoperative 90-day mortality and morbidity were 3.4% and 48%, respectively. Median hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit length of stay were 14 and 6 days, respectively. For 19 patients readmitted, the treatment was medical, radiological, or surgical, for 11, 5, and 3 patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Prehabilitation before major abdominal surgery is feasible, safe, and improve patients' functional reserves, QoL, and psychological status.

A multicentre, prospective cohort study of handsewn versus stapled intracorporeal anastomosis for robotic hemicolectomy.

AIM: Robotic right hemicolectomy is gaining in popularity due to the recognized technical benefits associated with the robotic platform. However, there is a lack of standardization regarding the optimal anastomotic technique in this cohort of patients, namely stapled or handsewn intra- or extra-corporeal anastomosis. The ergonomic benefit associated with the robotic platform lends itself to intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA). The aim of this study was to compare the short-term clinical outcomes of stapled versus handsewn ICA. METHOD: A multicentre prospective cohort study was undertaken across four high-volume robotic centres in France between September 2018 and December 2020. All adult patients undergoing an elective robotic right hemicolectomy with an ICA performed and a minimum postoperative follow-up of 30 days were included. The primary endpoint of our study was anastomotic leak within 30 days postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients underwent robotic right hemicolectomy: 92 (63.8%) had a stapled ICA and 52 (36.1%) a handsewn ICA. The operative indication was adenocarcinoma in 90% with a stapled ICA compared with 62% in the handsewn ICA group (p < 0.001). The overall operating time was longer in the handsewn ICA group compared with the stapled ICA group (219 min vs. 193 min; p = 0.001). The anastomotic leak rate was 3.3% in stapled ICA and 3.8% in handsewn ICA (p = 1.00). There was no difference in the rate or severity of postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION: ICA robotic hemicolectomy is technically safe and is associated with low rates of anastomotic leak overall and equivalent clinical outcomes between the two techniques.

Is it safe to perform an anastomosis for rectal cancer after prostate cancer? A multicentre study of 126 patients from the GRECCAR group.

AIM: To determine the safety of performing an anastomosis after rectal cancer (RC) resection in patients with a previously treated prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: Patients with a previously treated PC who underwent rectal resection from 2008 to 2018 were retrospectively included. Outcomes were compared between patients who underwent rectal resection with anastomosis (restorative surgery, RS+ group) and those with a definitive stoma (RS- group). In the RS+ group, anastomotic leak (AL) rates were assessed according to the type of reconstruction. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients underwent rectal surgery for mid-low RC after a previous PC treated by radiotherapy (RT) and/or radical prostatectomy. Overall, 80 patients (63%) underwent a RS and 46 patients (37%) underwent rectal surgery with a definitive stoma. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of intraoperative data, except for the type of resection with more multivisceral resection in the RS- group (p < 0.01). In the RS+group, a diverting stoma was performed in 74% of cases. No difference between the two groups in terms of overall morbidity was found. In the RS+group (n = 80), 17 patients (21%) experienced AL. Of these, none was observed when delayed coloanal anastomosis was performed (p = 0.16). Long-term permanent stoma in the RS+ group was 16% (n = 13). CONCLUSION: Restorative surgery after resection for RC in patients with a previous history of RT and/or radical prostatectomy for PC is safe without additional morbidity. In selected patients for restorative surgery, performing delayed coloanal anastomosis may represent a promising option.

Nonmetastatic ypt0 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment and total mesorectal excision: Lessons from a retrospective multicentric cohort of 383 patients.

BACKGROUND: A better understanding of pathological features and oncological survival in ypT0 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is required to improve patient selection criteria for rectal-preserving approach by local excision. Our aim was to define risk of lymph node metastasis and oncological outcomes in ypT0 rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision. METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for a nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma classified ypT0 after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, with or without locoregional lymph node involvement (ypN+ or ypN-), in 14 French academic centers between 2002 and 2015 were included. Data were collected retrospectively. Overall and disease-free survival were explored. RESULTS: Among the 383 ypT0 patients, 6% were ypN+ (23/283). Before chemoradiotherapy, 86% (327/380) were staged cT3-T4 and 41% (156/378) were staged cN+. The risk of ypN+ did not differ between cT3-T4 and cT1-T2 patients (P = .345) or between cN+ and cN- patients (P = .384). After a median follow-up of 61.1 months, we observed 95% confidence interval (92%-97%) of 5-year overall survival and 93% confidence interval (91%-96%) of 5-year disease-free survival. In Cox multivariate analysis, overall survival was altered by intra-abdominal septic complications (hazard ratio = 2.53, confidence interval [1.11-5.78], P = .028). Regarding disease-free survival, ypN+ status and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with a reduced disease-free survival (P = .001 for both). cT3/T4 staging and cN+ staging did not modify overall survival (P = .332 and P = .450) nor disease-free survival (P = .862 and P = .124). CONCLUSION: The risk of lymph node metastasis and the oncological survival do not depend on the initial cT or cN staging in cases of ypT0 complete rectal tumor regression.

Assessing Criteria for a Safe Early Discharge After Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery.

Importance: Early discharge after colorectal surgery has been advocated. However, there is little research evaluating clinical and/or laboratory criteria to determine who can be safely discharged early. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a C-reactive protein (CRP) level combined with 4 clinical criteria in ruling out an anastomotic leak and therefore allowing an early discharge on postoperative day 2 or 3. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, single-center cohort study was performed between February 2012 and July 2017. All consecutive adult patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included. All patients were followed up for 30 days postoperatively. Data analysis was performed in May 2021. Exposures: Whether the 5 discharge criteria were fulfilled on postoperative day 3 (or day 2 for patients discharged on day 2). Fulfillment was defined as a CRP level less than 150 mg/dL on the day of discharge, a return of bowel function, tolerance of a diet, pain less than 5 of 10 on a visual analog scale, and being afebrile during the entire stay. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measurement was the diagnostic performance of the 5 discharge criteria in anticipating anastomotic leak development. The diagnostic performance of CRP level alone and 4 clinical criteria alone was also evaluated. Secondary measures were anastomotic leaks and mortality rates up to postoperative day 30. A discharge was successful if the patient left the hospital on postoperative day 2 or 3 without any complications or readmissions. Results: A total of 287 patients were included (median [IQR] age, 58 [20] years; 141 men [49%] and 146 women [51%]). Mortality was 0%. There were 17 anastomotic leaks, of which 2 were on day 1 and were excluded. A total of 128 patients fulfilled all criteria, and 125 did not, including 34 for whom data were missing. Two leaks occurred in patients who had fulfilled all criteria vs 13 leaks in patients who did not (hazard ratio, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.03-0.69]; P = .01). Seventy-six of 128 patients (59.4%) were discharged successfully by postoperative day 3. The negative predictive value in ruling out an anastomotic leak was at least 96.9% for CRP alone (96.9% [95% CI, 93.3%-98.8%]), the 4 clinical criteria (98.4% [95% CI, 95.3%-99.7%]), and all 5 criteria combined (98.4% [95% CI, 94.5%-99.8%]). False-negative rates were 40% (95% CI, 16.3%-67.7%) for CRP level alone, 20% (95% CI, 4.3%-48.1%) for the other 4 criteria, and 13.3% (95% CI, 0%-40.5%) for all 5 criteria. Conclusions and Relevance: These 5 criteria have a high negative predictive value and the lowest false-negative rate, indicating they have the potential to allow for safe early discharge after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

What Is the Optimal Elective Colectomy for Splenic Flexure Cancer: End of the Debate? A Multicenter Study From the GRECCAR Group With a Propensity Score Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal elective colectomy in patients with splenic flexure tumor is debated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare splenic flexure colectomy, left hemicolectomy, and subtotal colectomy for perioperative, histological, and survival outcomes in this setting. DESIGN: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic splenic flexure tumor who underwent elective colectomy were included. PATIENTS: Between 2006 and 2014, 313 consecutive patients were operated on in 15 French Research Group of Rectal Cancer Surgery centers. INTERVENTIONS: Propensity score weighting was performed to compare short- and long-term outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, quality of surgical resection, overall postoperative morbidity, surgical postoperative morbidity, and rate of anastomotic leakage. RESULTS: The most performed surgery was splenic flexure colectomy (59%), followed by subtotal colectomy (23%) and left hemicolectomy (18%). Subtotal colectomy was more often performed by laparotomy compared with splenic flexure colectomy and left hemicolectomy (93% vs 61% vs 56%, p < 0.0001), and was associated with a longer operative time (260 minutes (120-460) vs 180 minutes (68-440) vs 217 minutes (149-480), p < 0.0001). Postoperative morbidity was similar between the 3 groups, but the median length of hospital stay was significantly longer after subtotal colectomy (13 days (5-56) vs 10 (4-175) vs 9 (4-55), p = 0.0007). The median number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher after subtotal colectomy compared with splenic flexure colectomy and left hemicolectomy (24 (8-90) vs 15 (1-81) vs 16 (3-52), p < 0.0001). The rate of stage III disease and the number of patients treated by adjuvant chemotherapy were similar between the 3 groups. There was no difference in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival between the 3 procedures. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: In the elective setting, splenic flexure colectomy is safe and oncologically adequate for patients with nonmetastatic splenic flexure tumor. However, given the oncological clearance after splenic flexure colectomy, it seems that the debate is not completely closed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B703. CUL ES LA COLECTOMA ELECTIVA PTIMA PARA EL CNCER DE NGULO ESPLNICO FIN DEL DEBATE UN ESTUDIO MULTICNTRICO DEL GRUPO GRECCAR CON UN ANLISIS DE PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIN: ANTECEDENTES:La colectomía electiva óptima en pacientes con tumores del ángulo esplénico continua en debate.OBJETIVO:Comparar la colectomía de ángulo esplénico, hemicolectomía izquierda y colectomía subtotal para los resultados perioperatorios, histológicos y de supervivencia en este escenario.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo multicéntrico.ESCENARIO:Se incluyeron pacientes diagnosticados de tumores del ángulo esplénico no metastásicos que se sometieron a colectomía electiva.PACIENTES:Entre 2006 y 2014, 313 pacientes consecutivos fueron intervenidos en 15 centros GRECCAR.INTERVENCIONES:Se realizó una ponderación del puntaje de propensión para comparar los resultados a corto y largo plazo.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El criterio de valoración principal fue la supervivencia libre de enfermedad. Los criterios de valoración secundarios incluyeron la supervivencia general, la calidad de la resección quirúrgica, la morbilidad posoperatoria general, la morbilidad posoperatoria quirúrgica y la tasa de fuga anastomótica.RESULTADOS:La cirugía más realizada fue la colectomía del ángulo esplénico (59%), seguida de la colectomía subtotal (23%) y la hemicolectomía izquierda (18%). La colectomía subtotal se realizó con mayor frecuencia mediante laparotomía en comparación con la colectomía de ángulo esplénico y la hemicolectomía izquierda (93% frente a 61% frente a 56%, p <0.0001), y se asoció con un tiempo quirúrgico más prolongado (260 min [120-460] frente a 180 min [68-440] frente a 217 min [149-480], p <0.0001). La morbilidad posoperatoria fue similar entre los tres grupos, pero la duración media de la estancia hospitalaria fue significativamente más prolongada después de la colectomía subtotal (13 días [5-56] frente a 10 [4-175] frente a 9 [4-55], p = 0.0007). La mediana del número de ganglios linfáticos extraídos fue significativamente mayor después de la colectomía subtotal en comparación con la colectomía del ángulo esplénico y la hemicolectomía izquierda (24 [8-90] frente a 15 [1-81] frente a 16 [3-52], p <0.0001). La tasa de enfermedad en estadio III y el número de pacientes tratados con quimioterapia adyuvante fueron similares entre los 3 grupos. No hubo diferencias en términos de supervivencia libre de enfermedad y supervivencia general entre los 3 procedimientos.LIMITACIONES:El estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:En un escenario electivo, la colectomía del ángulo esplénico es segura y oncológicamente adecuada para pacientes con tumores del ángulo esplénico no metastásicos. Sin embargo, dado el aclaramiento oncológico tras la colectomía del ángulo esplénico, parece que el debate no está completamente cerrado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B703.

Structured and shared MRI staging lexicon and report of rectal cancer: A consensus proposal by the French Radiology Group (GRERCAR) and Surgical Group (GRECCAR) for rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To develop French guidelines by experts to standardize data acquisition, image interpretation, and reporting in rectal cancer staging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Evidence-based data and opinions of experts of GRERCAR (Groupe de REcherche en Radiologie sur le CAncer du Rectum [i.e., Rectal Cancer Imaging Research Group]) and GRECCAR (Groupe de REcherche en Chirurgie sur le CAncer du Rectum [i.e., Rectal Cancer Surgery Research Group]) were combined using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method to attain consensus guidelines. Experts scoring of reporting template and protocol for data acquisition were collected; responses were analyzed and classified as "Recommended" versus "Not recommended" (when ≥ 80% consensus among experts) or uncertain (when < 80% consensus among experts). RESULTS: Consensus regarding patient preparation, MRI sequences, staging and reporting was attained using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. A consensus was reached for each reporting template item among the experts. Tailored MRI protocol and standardized report were proposed. CONCLUSION: These consensus recommendations should be used as a guide for rectal cancer staging with MRI.

Surgical Management of Retrorectal Tumors: A French Multicentric Experience of 270 Consecutives Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To report the largest multicentric experience on surgical management of retrorectal tumors (RRT). BACKGROUND: Literature data on RRT is limited. There is no consensus concerning the best surgical approach for the management of RRT. METHODS: Patients operated for RRT in 18 academic French centers were retrospectively included (2000-2019). RESULTS: A total of 270 patients were included. Surgery was performed through abdominal (n = 72, 27%), bottom (n = 190, 70%), or combined approach (n = 8, 3%). Abdominal approach was laparoscopic in 53/72 (74%) and bottom approach was Kraske modified procedures in 169/190 (89%) patients. In laparoscopic abdominal group, tumors were more frequently symptomatic (37/53, 70% vs 88/169, 52%, P = 0.02), larger [mean diameter = 60.5 ± 24 (range, 13-107) vs 51 ± 26 (20-105) mm, P = 0.02] and located above S3 vertebra (n = 3/42, 7% vs 0%, P = 0.001) than those from Kraske modified group. Laparoscopy was associated with a higher risk of postoperative ileus (n = 4/53, 7.5% vs 0%, P = 0.002) and rectal fistula (n = 3/53, 6% vs 0%, P=0.01) but less wound abscess (n = 1/53, 2% vs 24/169, 14%, P = 0.02) than Kraske modified procedures. RRT was malignant in 8%. After a mean follow up of 27 ±39 (1-221) months, local recurrence was noted in 8% of the patients. After surgery, chronic pain was observed in 17% of the patients without significant difference between the 2 groups (15/74, 20% vs 3/30, 10%; P = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Both laparoscopic and Kraske modified approaches can be used for surgical treatment of RRT (according to their location and their size), with similar long-term results.