Modified delayed coloanal anastomosis following TME for mid and low rectal cancer: 19 consecutive patients from a single center.

Surgery and management of rectal cancer have made significant progress in recent decades. However, there is still no coloanal anastomosis technique that offers a good compromise between functionality and low morbidity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficiency of the modified delayed coloanal anastomosis (mDCA). In this retrospective study, we analyzed the morbi-mortality as well as functional outcomes of 19 patients treated with mDCA, out of 73 colorectal cancer patients treated at our institution from September 2021 to June 2023. The inclusion criteria were cancer of the mid and low rectum (tumor less than 10 cm from the anal verge). Morbidity represented by complications of Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher was estimated at 5.2%. Only one patient experienced an asymptomatic anastomotic leak (AL) grade A. Ischemia of the colonic stump occurred in one patient, taken back to the OR on the 5th postoperative day. No stump retraction was noted. Anastomotic stenosis appeared in one patient (5.2%) during the 90-day postoperative period, and was treated by instrumental dilation. Perioperative mortality was nil. The mean St Marks incontinence score at 90 days was 13.2 points. At the 3-month follow-up, 15 patients (78.9%) had major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), three (15.7%) had minor LARS, and one patient (5.2%) had no LARS. None of the patients had a diversion loop ileostomy. The mDCA, by decreasing the rate of AL, without the need for diversion ileostomy, might be an interesting alternative to the conventional immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICA), for restoring the GI tract after proctectomy for cancer.

Turnbull-Cutait pull-through coloanal anastomosis versus standard coloanal anastomosis plus diverting ileostomy for low anterior resection: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

PURPOSE: Coloanal anastomosis with loop diverting ileostomy (CAA) is an option for low anterior resection of the rectum, and Turnbull-Cutait coloanal anastomosis (TCA) regained popularity in the effort to offer patients a reconstructive option. In this context, we aimed to compare both techniques. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched for studies published until January 2024. Odds ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled with a random-effects model. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics, with p-values inferior to 0.10 and I2 >25% considered significant. Statistical analysis was conducted in RStudio version 4.1.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Registered number CRD42024509963. RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial and nine observational studies were included, comprising 1,743 patients, of whom 899 (51.5%) were submitted to TCA and 844 (48.5%) to CAA. Most patients had rectal cancer (52.2%), followed by megacolon secondary to Chagas disease (32.5%). TCA was associated with increased colon ischemia (OR 3.54; 95% CI 1.13 to 11.14; p < 0.031; I2 = 0%). There were no differences in postoperative complications classified as Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIb, anastomotic leak, pelvic abscess, intestinal obstruction, bleeding, permanent stoma, or anastomotic stricture. In subgroup analysis of patients with cancer, TCA was associated with a reduction in anastomotic leak (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97 p = 0.04; I2 = 34%). CONCLUSION: TCA was associated with a decrease in anastomotic leak rate in subgroups analysis of patients with cancer.

Repair of radiation-induced rectovaginal fistula with rectal stricture by a combined Tuttle, Turnbull-Cutait and Singapore flap approach.

Radiation-induced rectovaginal fistula (RI-RVF) with associated rectal stricture represents a challenging problem in management. The aim of the present technical note is to describe a surgical technique aimed at minimizing disease recurrence by avoiding radiated tissue in the reconstruction: 1. Tuttle longitudinal incision of posterior vaginal wall with sharp excision of proximally located fistula; 2. Resection of strictured rectum via a combined transvaginal/laparotomy access, reconstruction with Turnbull-Cutait colon pull-through, and delayed handsewn coloanal anastomosis with loop ileostomy; 3. Bridge closure of the posterior vaginal wall by the interposition of a Singapore flap. This approach resulted in a favorable outcome at the 1-year follow-up in one patient with a medical history of gynecological carcinoma status after hystero-salpingo-oophorectomy followed by adjuvant radiation.

Risk factors for ischemia/necrosis of the colonic stump after proctectomy and delayed coloanal anastomosis.

INTRODUCTION: Delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) is a two-stage procedure. DCAA has been increasingly reused in recent years in the management of rectal cancer. Such increased use of DCAA has highlighted the complications associated with this procedure. We aimed to evaluate the risk and risk factors of ischemia/necrosis of the colonic stump between the two stages of DCAA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent a proctectomy with a DCAA were included in this retrospective single-centre study from November 2012 to June 2022. Two groups of patients were defined: patients with a well vascularized colonic stump (well vascularized group) and those who experienced ischemia or necrosis of the colonic stump (ischemic group). The primary endpoint was the rate of ischemia or necrosis of the colonic stump and an evaluation of the associated risk factors. RESULTS: During the study period, 43 patients underwent DCAA. Amongst them, 32 (75%) had a well-vascularized colonic stump (well-vascularized group) and 11 (25%) ischemia of the colonic stump (ischemic group). Relative to patients in the well-vascularized group, those in the ischemic group were more often men (81.8% vs 40.6%, p = 0.034), had a higher BMI (29.2 kg/m2 vs 25.7 kg/m2, p = 0.03), were more frequently diabetic (63.6% vs 21.9%, p = 0.01) and more frequently had had preoperative radiotherapy (100% vs 53.1%, p = 0.008). On the preoperative CT scan, the interspinous diameter was shorter in the ischemic group (9.4 ± 1.01 cm vs 10.6 ± 1.01 cm, p = 0.001), the intertuberosity diameter was shorter (9.2 ± 1.18 cm vs 11.9 ± 1.18 cm, p < 0.0001), and the length of the anal canal was longer (31.9 ± 3 mm vs 27.4 ± 3.2 mm, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study highlights clear risk factors for ischemia/necrosis of the colonic stump after proctectomy with DCAA.

Anastomotic leakage and functional outcomes following total mesorectal excision with delayed and immediate colo-anal anastomosis for rectal cancer: Two single-arm phase II trials.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains a major cause of morbidity following total mesorectal excision (TME). A diverting ileostomy reduces the risk of AL but impairs quality of life (QoL). Delayed colo-anal anastomosis (DCAA) may be an alternative to immediate colo-anal anastomosis (ICAA) without creation of a diverting ileostomy. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with T3 or N+ rectal tumours were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and TME. To evaluate DCAA or ICAA with diverting ileostomy, a two multicenter single-arm phase II trials was designed. The primary endpoint was the rate of AL requiring a diverting ileostomy up to 30 days postoperatively. Secondary endpoints were 30-day postoperative complications, 1- and 2-year disease-free survival; QoL at baseline, 6 months and anorectal function measured by the low anterior resection syndrome questionnaire and Wexner score at baseline, 6 months and a late assessment at median 8 years following surgery. RESULTS: AL requiring diverting ileostomy occurred in one patient (2.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0; 11.1]) in the DCAA group and in five patients (8.6%; 95%CI [3.2; 21.0]) in the ICAA group. Thirty-day postoperative complications occurred in 13 patients (27.1%) in the DCAA group and in 10 patients (19.2%) in the ICAA group. Short and long-term functional outcomes showed similar patterns. CONCLUSION: These two single-arm phase II trials showed that DCAA has low rates of AL requiring a diverting ileostomy and acceptable long-term functional results. DCAA seems a good choice to restore bowel continuity.

Transverse Coloplasty Pouch versus Straight Coloanal Anastomosis Following Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: the Functional Benefits May Emerge After Two Years.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the oncological and functional outcomes following intersphincteric resection (ISR) with transverse coloplasty pouch (TCP) or straight coloanal anastomosis (SCAA) for low rectal cancer. METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis was performed on patients with low rectal cancer who received ISR between January 2016 and June 2021. The primary endpoint was to compare the outcomes of bowel function within 1 year, 1 to 2 years, and 2 years after ileostomy closure in patients undergoing two different bowel reconstruction procedures (TCP or SCAA). The postoperative complications and oncological results were also compared between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 235 patients were enrolled in this study (SCAA group: 166; TCP group: 69). There was no significant difference in complications, including grades A-C anastomotic leakage (9.6% vs 15.9%), 3-year local recurrence rates (6.1% vs 3.9%), disease-free survival (82.4%vs 83.8%), or overall survival (94.1% vs 94.7%) between the two groups. Two years after ileostomy closure, 52.7% of patients in the SCAA group were assessed as having major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), which was significantly higher than the 25.9% of patients in the TCP group (P = 0.014), but no difference was found prior to 2 years. Similar differences were seen in Wexner scores 2 years after surgery (P = 0.032). Additionally, TCP was an independent protective factor for postoperative bowel function as measured by both the LARS (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10-0.82; p = 0.020) and Wexner scoring (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.84; p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that TCP is a safe technique that may decrease bowel dysfunction after ISR for low rectal cancer compared with SCAA 2 years after ileostomy closure.

Neorectal prolapse following proctectomy: a novel application of mesh sacral pexy.

Neorectal prolapse following proctectomy for cancer has seldom been reported and treatment has mostly consisted in the resection of the prolapse via a perineal approach. Management of a patient with neorectal J-pouch prolapse using mesh sacral pexy via an abdominal approach is reported. By analogy with native rectal prolapse due to pelvic static disorders, laparoscopic mesh sacral pexy is likely to afford the same advantages of low morbidity and durability when applied to neorectal prolapse following rectal cancer surgery.

Treatment of side limb full-thickness prolapse of the side-to-end coloanal anastomosis follow-ing intersphincteric resection: a case report and review of literature.

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) with coloanal anastomosis is an oncologically safe anus-preserving technique for very low-lying rectal cancers. Most studies focused on oncological and functional outcomes of ISR with very few evaluating long-term postoperative anorectal complications. Full-thickness prolapse of the neorectum is a relatively rare complication. This report presents the case of a 70-year-old woman presenting with full-thickness prolapse of the side limb of the side-to-end coloanal anastomosis occurring 2 weeks after the stoma closure and 2 months after a robotic partial ISR performed with the Da Vinci single-port platform (Intuitive Surgical System Inc.). The anastomosis was revised through resection of the side limb and conversion of the side-to-end anastomosis into an end-to-end handsewn anastomosis with interrupted stitches. This study describes the first case of full-thickness prolapse of the side limb of the side-to-end handsewn coloanal anastomosis following ISR. Moreover, a revision of all reported cases of post-ISR full-thickness and mucosal prolapse was performed.

Effective initial management of anastomotic leak in the maintenance of functional colorectal or coloanal anastomosis.

PURPOSE: The present study assessed the factors associated with the maintenance of a functional anastomosis in a large consecutive series of patients with anastomotic leakage (AL). METHODS: All consecutive patients presenting with AL after colorectal or coloanal anastomosis (2012-2019) were analyzed. The primary end point was a functional anastomosis without a stoma at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients were included. AL was initially treated by antibiotics (38%), drainage (43%) or urgent surgery (19%). Initial treatment of AL was not adequate in 24.3%, and reintervention in the form of drainage or surgery was required. A total of 60.9% of patients had a functional anastomosis without a stoma 1 year after surgery. Factors associated with the risk of anastomotic failure at 1 year were diabetes (odds ratio [OR] = 4.24 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.39-14.24] p = 0.014), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (OR = 3.03 [95% CI 1.14-8.63] p = 0.03) and Grade B (OR = 6.49 [95% CI 2.23-21.74] p = 0.001) or C leak (OR = 35.35 [95% CI 9.36-168.21] p < 0.001). Among patients treated initially by drainage, side-to-end or J-pouch anastomoses were significantly associated with revision of the anastomosis compared to end-to-end (OR = 12.90, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: After acute AL following coloanal or colorectal anastomosis, 60.9% of patients had a functional anastomosis without a stoma at the 1 year of follow-up. The type of treatment of AL influenced the risk of anastomotic failure.

Cost-effectiveness comparison of delayed versus immediate coloanal anastomosis following ultralow anterior resection for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Following ultralow anterior resection for distal rectal cancers, a coloanal anastomosis is usually created along with a defunctioning ileostomy (DI). Recent evidence suggests that abdominoperineal pull-through with delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) is a viable alternative to immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA), minimizing the risk of anastomotic leakage and avoiding the need for stoma creation with the risk of stoma-associated morbidity. However, DCAA requires a longer initial hospitalization. We aimed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare DCAA versus ICAA for elective rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: A decision tree model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two strategies. Cost data were obtained from the 2019 to 2020 United Kingdom National Health Service reference costs. Model probabilities were derived from published studies. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the robustness of the results. RESULTS: DCAA was the overall cheaper strategy at £13 541 compared with £14 856 for ICAA in the base case analysis. This was explained by the decreased overall costs of hospitalization/surgery, reduction in costs associated with anastomotic or stoma-related complications, specifically dehydration-induced hospital readmissions and avoidance of stoma maintenance costs. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that DCAA remained consistently more inexpensive except when the duration of total parenteral nutrition exceeded 14 days. CONCLUSION: Despite a longer index hospitalization with higher initial costs, this economic analysis demonstrates that DCAA without stoma is overall more cost-effective compared with ICAA with DI following ultralow anterior resection. Cost savings should be considered an additional benefit when selecting the DCAA approach for rectal cancer surgery.

Scarless two-stage delayed coloanal anastomosis: a technique description

Introduction: In current clinical practice, immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICA) remains the standard technique for restoring the gastrointestinal tract following coloproctectomy for low rectal cancer. This anastomosis still requires a temporary diverting stoma to decrease the postoperative morbidity, which remains significantly high. As an alternative, some authors have proposed a two-stage delayed coloanal anastomosis (TS-DCA). This article reports on the surgical technique of TS-DCA. Methods: The case described is of a 53-year-old woman, without any particular history, in whom colonoscopy motivated by rectal bleeding revealed an adenocarcinoma of the low rectum. Magnetic resonance imaging showed a tumor ~ 1 cm above the puborectalis muscle, graded cT3N +. The extension workup was negative. Seven weeks after chemoradiotherapy, a coloproctectomy with total mesorectal excision (TME) was performed. A TS-DCA was chosen to restore the digestive tract. Conclusion: Two-stage delayed coloanal anastomosis is a safe and effective alternative for restoring the digestive tract after proctectomy for low rectal cancer. Recent data seem to show a clear advantage of this technique in terms of morbidity. (AU)

Pediatric Sigmoid Volvulus: A Report on Two Cases.

Sigmoid volvulus is a rare cause of intestinal obstruction in the pediatric age group. Rotation of the redundant sigmoid colon about its narrow mesenteric base results in vascular compromise and large bowel obstruction. Predisposing factors for sigmoid volvulus are Hirschsprung's disease, congenital anomalous fixation of the colon, and chronic constipation. Here, we report two cases of sigmoid volvulus in children with redundant sigmoid colon in the South Indian subcontinent. If it is not diagnosed in time, it may lead to serious complications such as gangrene, perforation, septic shock, and eventually death. Thus, the condition warrants prompt evaluation and treatment.

Laparoscopic Proximally Extended Colorectal Resection With Two-Stage Turnbull-Cutait Pull-Through Coloanal Anastomosis for Late Complications of Chronic Radiation Proctopathy.

Background: Chronic radiation proctopathy (CRP) is a common complication after radiation therapy for pelvic malignancies. Compared with diversion surgery, resection surgery removes the damaged tissue completely to avoid the risks of recurrence and improve patients' outcome. Hence, resection surgery could be an optimal surgical approach when CRP is complicated by late complications. This study aimed to describe a modified surgical procedure of resection surgery and report its preliminary efficacy and safety in treating patients with CRP with late complications. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the patients who were diagnosed with CRP with late complications and underwent the modified surgical procedure of laparoscopic proximally extended colorectal resection with two-Stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through coloanal anastomosis (PE-Bacon) between November 2019 and October 2020 in the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University. Results: A total of 15 patients were performed the modified laparoscopic procedure of PE-Bacon, of which 1 patient underwent conversion from laparoscopic to open operation for intraoperative massive hemorrhage. Overall, the major (Clavien-Dindo III-V) postoperative complications occurred in 1 patient, anastomotic leakage was observed in 2 (13.3%) patients, and anastomotic stricture was observed in 4 (26.7%) patients. No patient had to be reoperated and died. Up to now, at the average follow-up of (524.40 ± 108.39) days, the preoperative symptoms of 93.3% (14/15) patients were relieved, with nine patients achieved complete remission, five patients only suffered minor symptoms. Because of the progression of radiation uropathy, one patient still had a vesicovaginal fistula as pre-operative complication. Colostomy reversal has been performed on 8 (53.3%) patients at an average postoperative duration of 299.5 ± 92.68 days, among whom only 2 patients suffered from major Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) until now. Conclusions: Laparoscopic PE-Bacon surgery is a safe and feasible surgical procedure for late complications of CRP with low morbidity and high symptom remission rate.

Postoperative rectovaginal fistula: Can colonic pull-through delayed coloanal anastomosis avoid the need for definitive stoma? An experience of 28 consecutives cases.

AIM: Management of rectovaginal fistula (RVF) remains a challenge, especially in cases of postoperative RVF as they are often large and surrounded by inflammatory and fibrotic tissue, making local repair difficult or even impossible. In this situation, colonic pull-through delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) could be an interesting option. The aim of this study was to assess the results of DCAA for RVF observed after rectal surgery. METHODS: All patients who underwent DCAA for RVF were reviewed. Success was defined as a patient without stoma and without any symptoms of recurrent RVF at the end of follow-up. RESULTS: From January 2010 to December 2020, 28 DCAA were performed for RVF after rectal surgery for rectal cancer (n = 21) or endometriosis (n = 7). Ten patients (36%) had at least one previous local procedure before DCAA. DCAA was associated with temporary ileostomy in 22/28 cases (79%). After a mean follow-up of 23 ± 23 (2-82) months, the success rate was 86% (24/28): three patients (11%) required a definitive stoma because of poor functional results (n = 1), chronic pelvic sepsis with anastomotic leakage (n = 1) or stoma reversal refused (n = 1). Another patient (3%) presented with recurrence of RVF, 26 months after DCAA. Although not significant, the success rate was higher in cases of DCAA with diverting stoma (20/22, 91%) than without (4/6, 67%) (p = 0.191). CONCLUSION: In cases of postoperative RVF, DCAA is a safe option which can avoid definitive stoma in the great majority of the patients. Concomitant use of a temporary stoma appears to slightly increase the success rate.

Surgical outcomes of Turnbull-Cutait delayed coloanal anastomosis with pull-through versus immediate coloanal anastomosis with diverting stoma after total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Theoretical advantages of Turnbull-Cutait pull-through delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) are a reduced risk of anastomotic leak and therefore avoidance of stoma. Gradually abandoned in favor of immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA) with diverting stoma, DCAA has regained popularity in recent years in reconstructive surgery for low RC, especially when combined with minimally invasive surgery (MIS). The aim of this study was to perform the first meta-analysis, exploring the safety and outcomes of DCAA compared to ICAA with protective stoma. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL and Google Scholar databases was performed for studies published from January 2000 until December 2020. The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review on Interventions recommendations and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Out of 2626 studies screened, 9 were included in the systematic review and 4 studies in the meta-analysis. Outcomes included were postoperative complications, pelvic sepsis and risk of definitive stoma. Considering postoperative complications classified as Clavien-Dindo III, no significant difference existed in the rate of postoperative morbidity between DCAA and ICAA (13% versus 21%; OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.38-3.62; p = 0.78; I2 = 20%). Patients in the DCAA group experienced a lower rate of postoperative pelvic sepsis compared with patients undergoing ICAA with diverting stoma (7% versus 14%; OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.16-0.85; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%). The risk of definitive stoma was comparable between the two groups (2% versus 2% OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.15-3.85; p = 0.75; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: According to the limited current evidence, DCAA is associated with a significant decrease in pelvic sepsis. Further prospective trials focusing on oncologic and functional outcomes are needed.

Quality of life meta-analysis following coloanal anastomosis versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer.

AIM: In low rectal cancers without sphincter involvement a permanent stoma can be avoided without compromising oncological safety. Functional outcomes following coloanal anastomosis (CAA) compared to abdominoperineal excision (APR) may be significantly different. This study examines all available comparative quality of life (QoL) data for patients undergoing CAA versus APR for low rectal cancer. METHODS: Published studies with comparative data on QoL outcomes following CAA versus APR for low rectal cancer were extracted from electronic databases. The study was registered with PROSPERO and adhered to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Data was combined using random-effects models. RESULTS: Seven comparative series examined QoL in 527 patients. There was no difference in the numbers receiving neoadjuvant radiotherapy in the APR and CAA groups (OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.78-1.81, p = 0.43). CAA was associated with higher mean scores for physical functioning(std mean diff -7.08, 95% CI: -11.92 to -2.25, p = 0.004) and body image (std. mean diff 11.11, 95% CI: 6.04-16.18, p < 0.0001). Male sexual problems were significantly increased in patients who had undergone APR compared to CAA (std. mean diff -16.20, 95% CI: -25.76 to -6.64, p = 0.0009). Patients who had an APR reported more fatigue, dyspnoea and appetite loss. Those who had a CAA reported higher scores for both constipation and diarrhoea. DISCUSSION: It is reasonable to offer a CAA to motivated patients where oncological outcomes will not be threatened. QoL outcomes appear to be superior when intestinal continuity is maintained, and permanent stoma avoided.

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.

Delayed pull-through coloanal anastomosis without temporary stoma: an alternative to the standard manual side-to-end coloanal anastomosis with temporary stoma? A comparative study in 223 patients with low rectal cancer.

AIM: After total mesorectal excision (TME) for low rectal cancer, current guideline recommendations for sphincter-saving surgery are to perform a side-to-end manual coloanal anastomosis (CAA) (or with J-pouch) with a temporary stoma. Our study aimed to evaluate if delayed pull-through coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) without a temporary stoma could represent a safe alternative in low rectal cancer. METHOD: From 2003 to 2020, 223 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer undergoing TME were compared: CAA and diverting stoma (n = 190) versus DCAA without stoma (n = 33). RESULTS: Overall 3-month and severe (Dindo ≥ IIIb) morbidity rates were similar in CAA versus DCAA groups: 34% (65/190) vs. 36% (12/33) and 2.6% (5/190) vs. 3% (1/33), respectively. In the DCAA group, only one patient (3%) underwent reoperation (Hartmann's procedure) at day 3 due to colon necrosis. The anastomotic leakage rate (both clinical and radiological) was significantly higher after CAA than DCAA: 28% (53/190) vs. 3% (1/33; p = 0.00138). Failure of the procedure (with return to stoma) was observed in 8% (15/190) vs. 6% (2/33) of patients after CAA and DCAA respectively (not significant). CONCLUSION: Our comparative study suggested that in patients with low rectal cancer, DCAA without a temporary stoma could represent an interesting alternative to the actual recommended CAA with a temporary ileostomy. DCAA could offer two major advantages over CAA: a significantly lower rate of anastomotic leakage and absence of a temporary stoma and its potential complications (rehospitalization, dehydration, wound hernia after stoma closure).

Second redo surgery after two consecutive failures of a colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: is it reasonable?

PURPOSE: Colorectal redo surgery is well known to be a difficult procedure, associated with a high risk of failure. The aim of this study was to look into patients presenting two consecutive failed colorectal (CRA) or coloanal (CAA) anastomosis who underwent a second redo surgery (i.e., third anastomosis). METHODS: A retrospective study based on a prospective database of second redo surgeries of CRA or CAA, in an expert center. Sixteen patients between 2005 and 2020 were analyzed. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 28 ± 26 months, success of surgery (defined as no stoma at the end of follow-up) was reported in 10/16 patients (63%). One patient with chronic anastomotic leakage and another with early colonic ischemia had no defunctioning stoma reversal. In the remaining four patients with a failed second redo surgery, a definitive stoma was ultimately created for fistula recurrence (n = 1), poor functional results (n = 2), or local cancer recurrence (n = 1). Two risk factors for failure of this second redo surgery were significantly found in a univariate analysis: (1) nature of the primary anastomosis: 3/13 s redo surgeries failed (23%) if a CRA was first made and 3/3 (100%) if it was a CAA (p = 0.036); (2) age: patients with a failed second redo surgery were older (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: A 63% rate of success of second redo surgery was observed after two failed CRA or CAA. Although a demanding procedure, it can be proposed to carefully selected and motivated patients.