A Delphi consensus statement for digital surgery.

The use of digital technology is increasing rapidly across surgical specialities, yet there is no consensus for the term 'digital surgery'. This is critical as digital health technologies present technical, governance, and legal challenges which are unique to the surgeon and surgical patient. We aim to define the term digital surgery and the ethical issues surrounding its clinical application, and to identify barriers and research goals for future practice. 38 international experts, across the fields of surgery, AI, industry, law, ethics and policy, participated in a four-round Delphi exercise. Issues were generated by an expert panel and public panel through a scoping questionnaire around key themes identified from the literature and voted upon in two subsequent questionnaire rounds. Consensus was defined if >70% of the panel deemed the statement important and <30% unimportant. A final online meeting was held to discuss consensus statements. The definition of digital surgery as the use of technology for the enhancement of preoperative planning, surgical performance, therapeutic support, or training, to improve outcomes and reduce harm achieved 100% consensus agreement. We highlight key ethical issues concerning data, privacy, confidentiality and public trust, consent, law, litigation and liability, and commercial partnerships within digital surgery and identify barriers and research goals for future practice. Developers and users of digital surgery must not only have an awareness of the ethical issues surrounding digital applications in healthcare, but also the ethical considerations unique to digital surgery. Future research into these issues must involve all digital surgery stakeholders including patients.

Experiences of a "COVID protected" robotic surgical centre for colorectal and urological cancer in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The recent COVID-19 pandemic led to the cancellation of elective surgery across the United Kingdom. Re-establishing elective surgery in a manner that ensures patient and staff safety has been a priority. We report our experience and patient outcomes from setting up a "COVID protected" robotic unit for colorectal and renal surgery that housed both the da Vinci Si (Intuitive, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) and the Versius (CMR Surgical, Cambridge, UK) robotic systems. "COVID protected" robotic surgery was undertaken in a day-surgical unit attached to the main hospital. A standard operating procedure was developed in collaboration with the trust COVID-19 leadership team and adapted to national recommendations. 60 patients underwent elective robotic surgery in the initial 10-weeks of the study. This included 10 colorectal procedures and 50 urology procedures. Median length of stay was 4 days for rectal cancer procedures, 2 days less than prior to the COVID period, and 1 day for renal procedures. There were no instances of in-patient coronavirus transmission. Six rectal cancer patients waited more than 62 days for their surgery because of the initial COVID peak but none had an increase T-stage between pre-operative staging and post-operative histology. Robotic surgery can be undertaken in "COVID protected" units within acute hospitals in a safe way that mitigates the increased risk of undergoing major surgery in the current pandemic. Some benefits were seen such as reduced length of stay for colorectal patients that may be associated with having a dedicated unit for elective robotic surgical services.

An Observational Analysis of a Novel Digital Rectoscope.

BACKGROUND: This is an analysis of the first 50 in-human uses of a novel digital rigid sigmoidoscope. The technology provides digital image capture, telemedicine capabilities, improved ergonomics, and the ability to biopsy under pneumorectum while maintaining the low cost of conventional rigid sigmoidoscopy. The primary outcome was adverse events, and the secondary outcome was diagnostic view. PRELIMINARY RESULTS: Fifty patients underwent outpatient (n = 25) and surgical rectal assessment (n = 25), with a mean age of 60 years. This included 31 men and 19 women with 12 different clinical use indications. No adverse events were reported, and no defects were reported with the instrumentation. Satisfactory diagnoses were obtained in 48 (96%) of 50 uses, images were captured in 48 (96%) of 50 uses, and biopsies were successfully taken in 13 uses (26%). No adverse events were recorded. Independent reviewers of recorded videos agreed on the quality and diagnostic value of the images with a κ of 0.225 (95% CI, 0.144-0.305) when assessing whether the target pathology was adequately visualized. IMPACT OF INNOVATION: The improved views afforded by digital rectoscopy facilitated a satisfactory clinical diagnosis in 96% of uses. The device was successfully deployed in the operating room and outpatients irrespective of bowel preparation method, where it has the potential to replace flexible sigmoidoscopy for specific use cases. The technology provides a high-quality image and video that can be securely recorded for documentation and medicolegal purposes with agreement between blinded users despite a lack of standardized training and heterogenous pathology. We perceive significant impact of this technology for the assessment of colorectal anastomoses, the office management of colitis, "watch and wait," and for diagnostic support in rectal cancer diagnosis. The technology has significant potential to facilitate proctoring and training, and it now requires prospective trials to validate its diagnostic accuracy against more costly flexible sigmoidoscopy systems.

Minimal access rectal cancer surgery: an observational study of patient outcomes from a district general hospital with over a decade of experience with robotic rectal cancer surgery.

AIM: Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer has become established more slowly than in other specialities. The aim of this study was to assess the risks and benefits of the use of robotic rectal cancer surgery in comparison with laparoscopic surgery within the confines of a subspecialist rectal cancer service in a district general hospital. METHOD: Outcomes from consecutive patients undergoing minimal access rectal cancer surgery between July 2008 and January 2020 were analysed. Comparisons were made between short-term outcomes including conversion rates, anastomotic leakage and pathological outcomes as well as long-term survival and cancer recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 337 patients were included in the analysis, 204 (60.5%) of whom underwent robotic surgery. Demographic characteristics and use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were similar between groups. However, patients having robotic surgery had significantly lower tumours than in the laparoscopic group (7.6 cm vs. 9.8 cm, p = 0.003). Conversion to open surgery in the robotic group was significantly less likely (9.8% vs. 22.6%, p = 0.001). Operative mortality, clinical leakage and major complications were similar between groups. While asymptomatic 'radiological' leaks were significantly more common following robotic surgery (13.7% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.017) this did not affect the long-term stoma closure rate. Pathological outcomes were similar with the exception of shorter mean distal resection margins (25.9 mm vs. 32.8 mm, p = 0.001) for the robotic group of patients. There was no statistical difference in 5-year survival between groups (78.7% robotic vs. 85.4% laparoscopic, p = 0.263) nor local recurrence (2.0% robotic vs. 3.8% laparoscopic, p = 0.253). CONCLUSIONS: These results illustrate how the selective use of robotic surgery by a dedicated rectal cancer team can achieve low rates of cancer recurrence and low permanent stoma rates.

The 'hub and spoke model' for the management of surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the on-going COVID-19 pandemic a number of key public health services have been severely impacted. These include elective surgical services due to the synergetic resources required to provide both perioperative surgical care whilst also treating acute COVID-19 patients and also the poor outcomes associated with surgical patients who develop COVID-19 in the perioperative period. This article discusses the important principles and concepts for providing important surgical services during the COVID-19 pandemic based on the model of the RMCancerSurgHub which is providing surgical cancer services for a population of approximately 2 million people across London during the pandemic. The model focusses on creating local and regional hub centres which provide urgent treatment for surgical patients in an environment that is relatively protected from the burden of COVID-19 illness. The model extensively utilises the extended multidisciplinary team to allow for a flexible approach with core services delivered in 'clean' sites which can adapt to viral surges. A key requirement is that of a clinical prioritisation process which allows for equity in access within and between specialties ensuring that patients are treated on the basis of greatest need, while at the same time protecting those whose conditions can safely wait from exposure to the virus. Importantly, this model has the ability to scale-up activity and lead units and networks into the recovery phase. The model discussed is also broadly applicable to providing surgical services during any viral pandemic.

Preclinical evaluation of the versius surgical system, a new robot-assisted surgical device for use in minimal access general and colorectal procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of a new robot-assisted surgical system (the Versius Surgical System, CMR Surgical, Cambridge, UK) for use in minimal access general and colorectal surgery, in a preclinical setting. Robot-assisted laparoscopy has been developed to overcome some of the important limitations of conventional laparoscopy. The new system is designed to assist surgeons in performing minimal access surgery and overcome some of the challenges associated with currently available surgical robots. METHODS: Cadaveric sessions were conducted to evaluate the ability of the system to provide adequate surgical access and reach required to complete a range of general and colorectal procedures. Port and bedside unit positions were recorded, and surgical access and reach were evaluated by the lead surgeon using a visual analogue scale. A live animal (porcine) model was used to assess the surgical device's safety in performing cholecystectomy or small bowel enterotomy. RESULTS: Nine types of procedure were performed in cadavers by nine lead surgeons; 35/38 procedures were completed successfully. The positioning of ports and bedside units reflected the lead surgeons' preferred laparoscopic set-up and enabled good surgical access and reach. Cholecystectomy (n = 6) and small bowel enterotomy (n = 5) procedures performed in pigs were all completed successfully by two surgeons. There were no device-related intra-operative complications. CONCLUSIONS: This preclinical study of a new robot-assisted surgical system for minimal access general and colorectal surgery demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the system in cadaver and porcine models. Further studies are required to assess its clinical utility.

Hand-Sewn versus Stapled Closure of Loop Ileostomy: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Individual trials comparing hand-sewn with stapled closure of loop ileostomy show different outcomes due to lack of statistical power. A systematic review, with a pooled analysis of results, might provide a more definitive answer. This review aimed to compare hand-sewn with stapled anastomotic technique for closure of a loop ileostomy and looked at the effect of bowel resection on the complication rates. METHODOLOGY: Relevant studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database. All randomised clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies comparing hand-sewn with stapled closure of loop ileostomy were included. RESULTS: Of the 4,917 patients in 15 identified studies, 3,406 had hand-sewn and 1,511 stapled anastomosis. There was no difference in the rate of anastomotic leak between the hand-sewn (2.93%, 55/1,877) and the stapled group (2.08%, 25/1,202) (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.43-1.54, p = 0.52, I2 = 33%). The rate of small-bowel obstruction was higher in the hand-sewn group (7.03%, 231/3,284) compared to the stapled group (5.58%, 73/1,308; OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.92, p = 0.01, I2 = 0%). There was no difference in the incidence of anastomotic leak and small-bowel obstruction in the hand-sewn anastomosis between patients with or without bowel resection. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the rate of anastomotic leakage between the hand-sewn and stapled techniques. The rate of small-bowel obstruction was higher in the hand-sewn group. Performance of bowel resection does not significantly increase the incidence of anastomotic leak or small-bowel obstruction.

To divert or not to divert: A retrospective analysis of variables that influence ileostomy omission in ileal pouch surgery.

HYPOTHESIS: A model could be developed to identify patients who can safely undergo restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) without proximal diversion. DESIGN: Logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent factors favoring omission of ileostomy at the time of RPC. A propensity nomogram was developed and validated using measures of calibration, discrimination, and subgroup analysis. SETTING: Two tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS: A total of 4013 patients undergoing RPC between January 1977 and December 2005 were included in the study sample. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The decision to omit loop ileostomy at the time of RPC. RESULTS: After study group exclusions, proximal diversion was performed in 3196 of 3733 patients (85.6%) undergoing RPC; 45.4% of 3733 patients were women. The mean (SD) age at surgery was 37.4 (12.8) years. Ulcerative colitis was the indication for RPC in 2304 patients (61.7%) and familial adenomatous polyposis in 364 patients (9.8%), and a J pouch was performed in 2657 patients (71.2%). The following were found to be associated with ileostomy omission: stapled anastomosis (odds ratio [OR], 6.4), no preoperative corticosteroid use (OR, 3.2), familial adenomatous polyposis diagnosis (OR, 2.6), cancer diagnosis (OR, 3.4), female sex (OR, 1.6), and age at surgery younger than 26 years (OR, 2.1) (P < .01 for all). The model discriminated well (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 74.9%), with no significant differences between observed and expected outcomes (P = .49). Omission of proximal diversion demonstrated no significant effect on postoperative adverse events, although it was associated with a 2-day increase in the median length of hospital stay (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Incorporation of a 5-point nomogram in the preoperative assessment of patients undergoing RPC may aid clinicians in identifying a select group of patients who may be candidates for ileostomy omission during RPC.

The influence of circumferential resection margins on long-term outcomes following rectal cancer surgery.

PURPOSE: Circumferential resection margin involvement after rectal cancer surgery is associated with local recurrence and decreased survival, but definitions of "safe" margins vary. This study assessed the influence of various circumferential margins on long-term outcome from rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: Data were extracted from a rectal cancer database of patients undergoing rectal resection at a tertiary referral center between 1971 and 1996. The influence of circumferential margins on five-year local recurrence and cancer-specific survival were assessed using Cox regression. RESULTS: Circumferential margin measurements were available from 435 patients (median follow-up, 70.4 months). Cancer-specific survival at five years was 80.8%, 69.2%, 59.2%, and 34.1% for tumors with a circumferential resection margin of >10 mm, 3-10 mm, 2 mm, and < or =1mm, respectively (P < 0.001). Local recurrence at five years was 9.0%, 14.7%, and 25.8% for margins >10 mm, 2-10 mm, and < or =1 mm, respectively (P = 0.001). Independent predictors of cancer-specific mortality were circumferential margins of < or =1 mm vs. >10 mm (odds ratio = 3.38, P = 0.014) or 2 mm (odds ratio = 2.24, P = 0.029), Dukes Stage (C2 vs. A: odds ratio = 15.18, P < 0.001), and vascular invasion (present vs. absent: odds ratio = 1.51, P = 0.033). Local recurrence was predicted by a margin of < or =1 mm (odds ratio = 2.29, P = 0.041), gender (female vs. male: odds ratio = 0.25, P = 0.002), Dukes Stage (C2 vs. A: odds ratio = 28.89, P = 0.003), and vascular invasion (extramural vs. none: odds ratio = 2.04, P = 0.024). CONCLUSION: Circumferential margins < or =2 mm are associated with significantly reduced cancer-specific survival, and margins < or =1 mm with increased local recurrence, when other factors are accounted for, challenging the assumption that a circumferential resection margin of < or =1 mm is safe.

The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6,107 cases.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Loop ileostomies are used currently in surgical practice to reduce the consequences of distal anastomotic failure following colorectal resection. It is often assumed that reversal of a loop ileostomy is a simple and safe procedure. However, many studies have demonstrated high morbidity rates following loop ileostomy closure. The aims of this systematic review were to examine all the existing evidence in the literature on morbidity and mortality following closure of loop ileostomy. METHOD: A literature search of Ovid, Embase, the Cochrane database, Google Scholar and Medline using Pubmed as the search engine was used to identify studies reporting on the morbidity of loop ileostomy closure (latest at June 15th 2008), was performed. Outcomes of interest included demographics, the details regarding the original indication for operation, operative and hospital-related outcomes, post-operative bowel-related complications, and other surgical and medical complications. RESULTS: Forty-eight studies from 18 countries satisfied the inclusion criteria. Outcomes of a total of 6,107 patients were analysed. Overall morbidity following closure of loop ileostomy was found to be 17.3% with a mortality rate of 0.4%. 3.7% of patients required a laparotomy at the time of ileostomy closure. The most common post-operative complications included small bowel obstruction (7.2%) and wound sepsis (5.0%). CONCLUSION: The consequences of anastomotic leakage following colorectal resection are severe. However, the consequences of stoma reversal are often underestimated. Surgeons should adopt a selective strategy regarding the use of defunctioning ileostomy, and counsel patients further prior to the original surgery. In this way, patients at low risk may be spared the morbidity of stoma reversal.

Meta-analysis of randomized studies evaluating chewing gum to enhance postoperative recovery following colectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes following abdominal surgery with or without the use of chewing gum in the early postoperative period. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane databases. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials reporting 1 or more outcomes related to functional postoperative recovery. Study quality was assessed using a validated scale. DATA EXTRACTION: Time to the first passage of flatus, time to first bowel movement, and length of postoperative stay. DATA SYNTHESIS: Five trials (158 patients) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Time (in days) for the patient to pass flatus (weighted mean difference [WMD], - 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 1.11 to - 0.20; P = .005) and the time until the first bowel movement (WMD, - 1.10; 95% CI, - 1.79 to - 0.42; P = .002) were significantly reduced in the chewing gum group compared with controls. However, both of these results demonstrated significant heterogeneity. Postoperative length of stay was also reduced in the chewing gum group by longer than 1 day (WMD, - 1.25; 95% CI, - 3.27 to 0.77; P = .23); however, this result was not statistically significant. This result was significant when studies that explicitly included patients with stomas being formed during the surgery were excluded (WMD, - 2.46; 95% CI, - 3.14 to - 1.79; P < .001), with no significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Chewing gum may enhance intestinal recovery following colectomy and reduce the length of hospital stay. Owing to the potential for substantial cost savings, larger-scale, blinded, randomized controlled trials with placebo arms are warranted.

Comparison of outcomes after restorative proctocolectomy with or without defunctioning ileostomy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate postoperative adverse events and functional outcomes of patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy with or without proximal diversion. DATA SOURCES: The literature was searched by means of MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane databases for all studies published from 1978 through July 15, 2005. STUDY SELECTION: Comparative (randomized and nonrandomized) studies evaluating outcomes after restorative proctocolectomy with or without ileostomy were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Three authors independently extracted data by using operative variables, early and late adverse events, and functional outcomes between the 2 groups. Trials were assessed by means of the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Score. Random-effects meta-analytical techniques were used for analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: The review included 17 studies comprising 1486 patients (765 without ileostomy and 721 with ileostomy). There were no significant differences in functional outcomes between the 2 groups. The development of pouch-related leak was significantly higher in the no-ileostomy group (odds ratio, 2.37; P = .002). Small-bowel obstruction was more common in the stoma group but was not statistically significant (odds ratio, 0.65). The development of anastomotic stricture favored the no-stoma group (odds ratio, 0.31; P = .045). On sensitivity analysis, pelvic sepsis was significantly less common in patients whose ileostomies were defunctioned; however, this finding was not mirrored by a significant difference in ileal pouch failure in this subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Restorative proctocolectomy without a diverting ileostomy resulted in functional outcomes similar to those of surgery with proximal diversion but was associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leak. Diverting ileostomy should be omitted in carefully selected patients only.

A national perspective on the decline of abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess rates of abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER) for rectal cancer between centers and over time, and to evaluate the influence of patient characteristics, including social deprivation, on APER rate. METHODS: Data on patients undergoing APER or anterior resection (AR) in England were extracted from a national administrative database for the years 1996 to 2004. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients presenting with rectal cancer undergoing APER. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to identify independent factors associated with a nonrestorative resection. RESULTS: Data on 52,643 patients were analyzed, 13,109(24.9%) of whom underwent APER. The APER rate significantly reduced over the study period from 29.4% to 21.2% (P < 0.001). Operative mortality following AR decreased significantly during the period of study (5.1% to 4.2%, P = 0.002), while that following APER did not (P = 0.075). Male patients were more likely to undergo APER (P < 0.001), whereas those with an emergency presentation more commonly underwent AR (P < 0.001). Independent predictors of increased APER rate were male gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.239, P < 0.001) and social deprivation (most vs. least deprived; OR = 1.589, P < 0.001), whereas increasing patient age (OR = 0.977, P = 0.027 per 10-year increase), year of study (2003/4 vs. 1996/7; OR = 0.646, P < 0.001) and initial presentation as an emergency (OR = 0.713, P < 0.001) were associated with lower APER rates. After accounting for case-mix, there was significant between-center variability in APER rates. CONCLUSION: Socially deprived patients were more likely to undergo abdominoperineal resection. Significant improvements in rates of nonrestorative resection were seen over time but although short-term outcomes following AR have improved, those following APER have not. Permanent stoma rates following rectal cancer surgery may be considered a surrogate marker of surgical quality.

Comparison of administrative data with the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) colorectal cancer database.

BACKGROUND: This study compared case volume and operative mortality from surgery for colorectal cancer in England derived from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) with the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) colorectal cancer database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data extracted from HES records for 2001-2002 for patients undergoing one of seven procedures for colorectal cancer were compared with those from the ACPGBI database. The primary endpoint was a 30-day post-operative mortality. RESULTS: 16,346 patients from HES were compared with 7,635 from the ACPGBI database. For trusts with patients in both databases, HES reported 12% more procedures than ACPGBI (7,516 vs 6,617). Records of anterior resection revealed reasonable agreement between HES and the ACPGBI databases (difference, 2%). By trust, the overall correlation between the reported procedures was 0.660. Reported crude mortality was inconsistent between the databases, with mortality from abdominoperineal excision of rectum showing the poorest correlation (r = 0.253). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, agreement between reported caseload and mortality was reasonable at a national, but not hospital, level. Investigation of differences between the two databases at unit level may help to detect under reporting of cases. The combination of data from both sources could be used to develop an enhanced system for monitoring outcomes from colorectal surgery in England.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomised control trials.

AIMS: To use meta-analytic techniques to compare peri-operative and short term post-operative outcomes for patients undergoing cholecystectomy via the laparoscopic or mini-open approach. METHODS: Randomised control trials published between 1992 and 2005, cited in the literature of elective laparoscopic (LC) versus mini-open cholecystectomy (MoC) for symptomatic gallstone disease were included. End points evaluated were adverse events, operative and functional outcomes. A random effects meta-analytical model was used and between-study heterogeneity assessed. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the difference in results for study size and quality and data reported from 2000. RESULTS: Nine randomised studies of 2032 patients were included in the analysis. There was considerable variation in the size and type of incision used for MoC in the studies. There was a significantly longer operating time for the LC group, by 14.14 minutes (95% CI 2.08, 26.19; p < 0.0001). Length of stay was reduced in the LC group by 0.37 days (95% CI -0.53, -0.21; p < 0.0001), with no significant heterogeneity for either outcome. For all other operative and post-operative outcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSION: MoC appeared to have similar outcomes compared to LC, however LC did reduce the length of hospital stay. MoC is a viable and safe option for healthcare providers without the financial resources for laparoscopic equipment and appropriately trained surgical teams.

A meta-analysis of quality of life for abdominoperineal excision of rectum versus anterior resection for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Avoiding a permanent stoma following rectal cancer excision is believed to improve quality of life (QoL), but evidence from comparative studies is contradictory. The aim of this study was to compare QoL following abdominoperineal excision of rectum (APER) with that after anterior resection (AR) in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1966 and 2006 comparing values of QoL following APER and AR. Random-effect meta-analysis was used to combine the data. Sensitivity analyses were performed for larger studies, those of higher quality and those using self-administered QoL questionnaires. RESULTS: The outcomes for 1,443 patients from 11 studies, of whom 486 (33%) underwent APER, were included. QoL assessments were made at periods of up to 2 years following surgery. There was no significant difference in global health scores between APER and AR. Vitality (WMD -9.82; 95% CI -27.01, -2.04, P = 0.01) and sexual function (WMD -2.73; 95% CI -4.93, -0.64, P = 0.01) were improved in the AR patients. Patients with low AR had improved physical function scores in comparison with APER patients (WMD -4.67; 95% CI -9.10, -0.23; P = 0.004). Cognitive (WMD 3.57; 95% CI 1.41, 5.73; P < 0.001) and emotional function scores (WMD 3.51; 95% CI 1.40, 5.62; P < 0.001) were higher for APER patients. CONCLUSION: Overall, when comparing APER with AR, we identified no differences in general QoL following the procedures. Individualisation of care for rectal cancer patients is essential, but a policy of avoidance of APER cannot currently be justified on the grounds of QoL alone.