Sphincter preservation in patients with low rectal cancer: striking the right oncological balance.

BACKGROUND: The surgical treatment options for low rectal cancer patients include the Abdominoperineal Resection and the sphincter saving Low Anterior Resection. There is growing evidence towards better outcomes for patients being treated with a Low Anterior Resection compared to an Abdominoperineal Resection. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the short term and oncological outcomes in low rectal cancer treatment. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data. SETTING: Rectal cancer patients from a single center in the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: Patients included all low rectal cancer patients (≤ 6 cm from the anal verge) undergoing Low Anterior Resection or Abdominoperineal Resection between 2006 and 2016. OUTCOME MEASURES: To identify differences in postoperative complications and disease free and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 262 patients were included for analysis (Low Anterior Resection n = 170, Abdominoperineal Resection n = 92). Abdominoperineal Resection patients were significantly older (69 versus 66 years), had lower tumours (3 versus 5 cm), received more neo-adjuvant radiation, had longer hospital stay and more complications (wound infections and wound dehiscence). Low Anterior Resections had a significantly higher number of harvested lymph nodes (17 versus 12) however there was no difference in nodal involvement and R0 resection rate. No significant difference was found for recurrence, overall survival and disease free survival. LIMITATION: Retrospective review of cancer database and single center data. CONCLUSION: In the treatment of low rectal cancer Abdominoperineal Resection is associated with higher rates of postoperative complications and longer hospital stay compared to the Low Anterior Resection, with similar oncological outcomes.

LAP-VEGaS Practice Guidelines for Reporting of Educational Videos in Laparoscopic Surgery: A Joint Trainers and Trainees Consensus Statement.

OBJECTIVE: Consensus statement by an international multispecialty trainers and trainees expert committee on guidelines for reporting of educational videos in laparoscopic surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Instructive laparoscopy videos with appropriate exposition could be ideal for initial training in laparoscopic surgery, but there are no guidelines for video annotation or procedural educational and safety evaluation. METHODS: Delphi questionnaire of 45 statements prepared by a steering group and voted on over 2 rounds by committee members using an electronic survey tool. Committee selection design included representative surgical training experts worldwide across different laparoscopic specialties, including general surgery, lower and upper gastrointestinal surgery, gynecology and urology, and a proportion of aligned surgical trainees. RESULTS: All 33 committee members completed both the first and the second round of the Delphi questionnaire related to 7 major domains: Video Introduction/Authors' information; Patient Details; Procedure Description; Procedure Outcome; Associated Educational Content; Peer Review; and Use in Educational Curriculae. The 17 statements that did not reach at least 80% agreement after the first round were revised and returned into the second round. The committee consensus approved 37 statements to at least an 82% agreement. CONCLUSION: Consensus guidelines on how to report laparoscopic surgery videos for educational purposes have been developed. We anticipate that following our guidelines could help to improve video quality.These reporting guidelines may be useful as a standard for reviewing videos submitted for publication or conference presentation.

Retained Needle Following Transanal Hemorrhoidal Dearterialization.

INTRODUCTION: A needle was retained during transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization. This rare complication has not been described before. TECHNIQUE: A spinal needle was inserted from the perianal skin to localize the retained foreign body that was located at 7 cm from the anal margin. A decision was made to proceed to intersphincteric dissection, and a 3-cm incision was made in the perianal skin from 2 to 4 o'clock. Deep pararectal dissection continued, and the needle was eventually found lying in the muscular layer, parallel to the plane of the dissection. RESULTS: The needle was retrieved intact, and repeat x-ray confirmed that no foreign body was retained. The patient made an uneventful recovery and was discharged home on postoperative day 1 with a 5-day course of oral antibiotics; she was examined in clinic 4 weeks following surgery and reported significant symptomatic improvement with no perianal pain or rectal bleeding. No anal fistula was found on the examination. CONCLUSIONS: X-ray guidance is a helpful adjunct to facilitate 3-dimensional localization. Intersphincteric dissection is a reliable alternative to the transanal approach, particularly when the needle cannot be seen arising from the mucosa or felt on palpation. Repeated attempts to palpate the needle should be avoided, because there is a potential risk of displacing it deeper or higher, making retrieval more difficult.