A comparison of perineal stapled prolapse resection and the Altemeier procedure at 2 Canadian academic hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The preferred perineal repair method for full-thickness rectal prolapse is the Altemeier procedure, a perineal proctosigmoidectomy with handsewn anastomosis. A recently described variant of this procedure combines the resection and anastomosis into 1 step by means of linear and transverse stapling. There are few published data comparing the characteristics and outcomes of these 2 approaches. METHODS: This retrospective review, performed at 2 Canadian academic hospitals, compares surgical and cost outcomes between the perineal stapled prolapse resection (PSPR) and the Altemeier procedure. All patients who underwent these procedures between 2015 and 2019 were included. RESULTS: There were 25 patients in the PSPR group and 19 in the Altemeier group. Patients in the PSPR group were significantly older than those in the Altemeier group (81 [95% confidence interval (CI) 70-92] yr v. 74 [95% CI 63-85] yr; p = 0.047), had a lower body mass index (21.4 [95% CI 17.7-25.1] v. 24.4 [95% CI 18.5-30.3]; p = 0.042) and had equivalent American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (2.84 [95% CI 2.09-3.59] v. 2.68 [95% CI 1.93-3.43]; p = 0.49). The operative time for PSPR was significantly less (30.3 [95% CI 16.3-44.3] min v. 67 [95% CI 43-91] min; p < 0.001), as were the operative costs. Recurrence (28.0% v. 36.8%; p = 0.53) and complication rates were equivalent. CONCLUSION: PSPR is a safe, efficient and effective approach to perineal proctosigmoidectomy. It is associated with surgical outcomes comparable to those of the Altemeier procedure, but with a significant reduction in operative time and cost.

Be Kind to Your Behind: A Systematic Review of the Habitual Use of Bidets in Benign Perianal Disease.

Background: Benign perianal disease carries significant morbidity and financial burden on the healthcare system. Given that sitz baths are recommended as a treatment modality, we considered whether using a continuous stream of water, in the form of a bidet, offers a convenient and effective alternative. Bidet use is the predominant form of perianal hygiene in Asia, but its role in perianal disease is unknown. Purpose: To critically analyze and systematically review the current evidence regarding the effect of habitual bidet use on symptoms of benign perianal disease. Data Sources. A database search was conducted on MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Library, and ProQuest Dissertations. All studies on bidet use in pruritus ani, hemorrhoids, or anal fissures were included. Data Extraction. The studies were screened and critically analyzed by two independent reviewers in line with PRISMA guidelines. Results: Two prospective trials and 1 cross-sectional study found that habitual use of bidets had no impact on the odds of developing hemorrhoids or hemorrhoidal symptoms. One RCT concluded that using bidets was non-inferior to sitz bath for post-hemorrhoidectomy pain. Two prospective trials and 1 cross-sectional study determined that habitual bidet use may increase the odds of developing pruritus ani. Two case series found that habitual bidet use may cause perianal burns or anterior anal fissures. A meta-analysis was not performed because only a limited number of studies were available, and they were of variable quality. Conclusion: The current evidence does not identify using bidets as a treatment modality for perianal disease, and further research is warranted to study this increasingly utilized technology.

Rate of Curative Surgery in Real-world Patients with Unresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated with FOLFOXIRI ± Bevacizumab: A Western Canadian Province Experience.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence from randomized trials suggests that FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) ± bevacizumab is associated with higher response rates, with the potential for conversion of unresectable to resectable disease in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, limited evidence is available on the efficacy and safety of this regimen in real-world patients with mCRC. The current study aims to evaluate the conversion rate and safety of FOLFOXIRI ± bevacizumab in real-world patients with unresectable mCRC. METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter population-based cohort study, patients who were diagnosed with unresectable mCRC between January 2015 and December 2018 in Saskatchewan and received FOLFOXIRI ± bevacizumab were assessed. Kaplan-Meier survival methods and the log-rank test were performed. RESULTS: A total of 28 eligible patients with a median age of 51 years (interquartile range 39-60) and a male:female ratio of 11:17 were identified; 39% had rectal cancer, 46% had extrahepatic disease, and 46% had bilobar liver metastases. Overall, 63% of the patients had a positive response to FOLFOXIRI ± bevacizumab and 53% underwent metastasectomy. Of all patients 60% had grade 3/4 toxicity and 32% required hospital admission. No treatment-related mortality was noted. After 4 years, 50% of the patients were alive. Median progression-free survival of patients who underwent surgery was 18 months (95% CI 11.3-24.7) versus 11 months (4-18.1) without surgery (p = 0.28). Median overall survival of patients with surgery was 33 months (17.5-48.5) versus 16 months (8.3-23.7) without surgery (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The current study suggests that FOLFOXIRI ± bevacizumab therapy in real-world patients with mCRC is associated with a high rate of conversion from unresectable to resectable metastatic disease. Patients with metastasectomy had better survival.