Search

Aim: Diverting stomas are routinely used in restorative surgery following total mesorectal exicision (TME) for rectal cancer to mitigate the clinical risks of anastomotic leakage (AL). However, routine diverting stomas are associated with their own complication profile and may not be required in all patients. A tailored approach based on personalized risk of AL and selective use of diverting stoma may be more appropriate. The aim of the TAilored SToma policY (TASTY) project was to design and pilot a standardized, tailored approach to diverting stoma in low rectal cancer., Method: A mixed-methods approach was employed. Phase I externally validated the anastomotic failure observed risk score (AFORS). We compared the observed rate of AL in our cohort to the theoretical, predicted risk of the AFORS score. To identify the subset of patients who would benefit from early closure of the diverting stoma using C-reactive protein (CRP) we calculated the Youden index. Phase II designed the TASTY approach based on the results of Phase I. This was evaluated within a second prospective cohort study in patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between April 2018 and April 2020., Results: A total of 80 patients undergoing TME surgery for rectal cancer between 2016 and 2018 participated in the external validation of the AFORS score. The overall observed AL rate in this cohort of patients was 17.5% (n = 14). There was a positive correlation between the predicted and observed rates of AL using the AFORS score. Using ROC curves, we calculated a CRP cutoff value of 115 mg/L on postoperative day 2 for AL with a sensitivity of 86% and a negative predictive value of 96%. The TASTY approach was designed to allocate patients with a low risk AFORS score to primary anastomosis with no diverting stoma and high risk AFORS score patients to a diverting stoma, with early closure at 8-14 days, if CRP values and postoperative CT were satisfactory. The TASTY approach was piloted in 122 patients, 48 (39%) were identified as low risk (AFORS score 0-1) and 74 (61%) were considered as high risk (AFORS score 2-6). The AL rate was 10% in the low-risk cohort of patient compared to 23% in the high-risk cohort of patients, p = 0.078 The grade of Clavien-Dindo morbidity was equivalent. The incidence of major LARS was lowest in the no stoma cohort at 3 months (p = 0.014)., Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of employing a selective approach to diverting stoma in patients with a low anastomosis following TME surgery for rectal cancer., (© 2024 Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Background: Despite the minimally invasive approach and early rehabilitation, abdominal-perineal resection (APR) remains a procedure with high morbidity, notably due to postoperative trapped bowel ileus and perineal healing complications. Several surgical techniques have been described for filling the pelvic void to prevent abscess formation and ileus by trapped bowel loop., Objective: The aim of our study was to compare the post APR complications for cancer of two of these techniques, omentoplasty and cecal mobilization, in a single-center study from an expert colorectal surgery center., Patients: From 2012 to 2022, 84 patients were included, including 58 (69%) with omentoplasty and 26 (31%) with cecal mobilization. They all underwent APR at Bordeaux University Hospital Center., Settings: A propensity score was used to avoid confounding factors as far as possible. Patient and procedure characteristics were initially comparable., Results: The 30-day complication rate was significantly higher in the cecal mobilization group (53.8% vs. 5.2% p < 0.01), as was the rate of pelvic abscess (34.6% vs. 0% p < 0.001)., Conclusion: These findings suggest that, when feasible, omentoplasty should be considered the preferred method for pelvic reconstruction following APR., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Aim: There are several anastomotic techniques available to facilitate restorative rectal cancer surgery after total mesorectal excision (TME), including double-stapled anastomosis (DST) and handsewn coloanal anastomosis (CAA). However, to date no one technique is superior with regard to anastomotic leakage (AL) or functional outcomes. Transanal transection single-stapled anastomosis (TTSS) aims to overcome some of the technical challenges and offer comparable clinical and functional outcomes to traditional anastomotic techniques. The aim of this study was to explore the role of TTSS in modern rectal cancer surgery and to provide comparative clinical and functional outcome data with DST and CAA., Method: A prospective cohort study was undertaken to assess the safety and clinical and patient-reported outcomes associated with the TTSS procedure. All patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer with an anastomosis performed within 6 cm of the anal verge between January 2016 and April 2021 were prospectively enrolled into this study. Clinical and patient-reported outcome data, including low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) assessment, were collected. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage within 30 days., Results: A total of 275 patients participated in this study, with 70 (25%) patients undergoing a TTSS, 110 (40%) undergoing a DST and 95 (35%) undergoing a CAA. Patients undergoing a CAA had more distal tumours than those having a TTSS or DST, with a median tumour height of 5, 7 and 9 cm (p < 0.001), respectively. We observed a statistically significant reduction in AL in the TTSS group compared with the DST group, with rates of 8.6% versus 20.9% (p = 0.028). There was no difference in LARS scores between patients undergoing TTSS and DST (p = 0.228), while patients with a CAA had worse LARS scores than TTSS patients (p = 0.002)., Conclusion: TTSS is a technically safe and feasible anastomotic technique in rectal cancer surgery as an alternative to DST and CAA. Its advantages over DST are a reduced AL rate and, over CAA, improved function. It should therefore be considered as an alternative technique to improve clinical and patient-reported outcomes in restorative rectal cancer surgery., (© 2023 Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Introduction: Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (LLP) in laparoscopy colorectal surgery (CS) has resulted in reduced hospital stay and lower analgesic consumption. Microsurgery (MS) in CS is a technique that has a significant impact with respect to postoperative pain. The combination of MS plus LLP, known as low-impact laparoscopy (LIL), has never been applied in CS. Therefore, this trial will assess the efficacy of LLP plus MS versus LLP alone in terms of decreasing postoperative pain 24 h after surgery, without taking opioids., Method: PAROS II will be a prospective, multicentre, outcome assessor-blinded, randomised controlled phase III clinical trial that compares LLP plus MS versus LLP alone in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colonic or upper rectal cancer or benign pathology. The primary outcome will be the number of patients with postoperative pain 24 h after the surgery, as defined by a visual analogue scale rating ≤3 and without taking opioids. Overall, PAROS II aims to recruit 148 patients for 50% of patients to reach the primary outcome in the LLP plus MS arm, with 80% power and an 5% alpha risk., Conclusion: The PAROS II trial will be the first phase III trial to investigate the impact of LIL, including LLP plus MS, in laparoscopic CS. The results may improve the postoperative recovery experience and decrease opioid consumption after laparoscopic CS., (© 2023 Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Introduction: Protective diverting ileostomy is commonly performed in rectal surgery to avoid septic complications of low colorectal anastomosis. Ileostomy closure usually occurs three months after the surgery and can be realized in two ways: hand sewn or stapled. Existing randomized studies comparing the two techniques showed no difference in terms of complications., Methods: Our study describes the standard technique of ileostomy reversal as done in Bordeaux University Hospital in 10 steps individually illustrated and with an explicative video. We also collected data concerning the 50 last patients who underwent an ileostomy reversal in our center from June 2021 to June 2022., Results: Mean duration of the ileostomy closure was 46.8 minutes, and the mean total hospital stay was 4.66 days. Five of 50 (10%) patients had a post-operative bowel obstruction, 2/50 (4%) patients had a post-operative bleeding, 1/50 (2%) patient had a wound infection, and there was no anastomotic leakage observed., Conclusion: Stapled side-to-side anastomosis is a rapid, simple, and reproducible technique for ileostomy reversal. There are no more complications compared to hand-sewn anastomosis. It engenders an additional cost compensated by the gain in operating time which altogether saves money., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Aim: The standard strategy for clinical T3 rectal cancer without enlarged lateral lymph nodes is preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) in Western countries and TME with bilateral lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) in Japan. This study compared surgical, pathological and oncological results of these two strategies., Method: Patients who underwent preoperative CRT followed by TME in France (CRT + TME group) and those who underwent TME with LPLND in Japan (TME + LPLND group) for clinical T3 rectal adenocarcinoma without enlarged lateral lymph nodes from 2010 to 2016 were retrospectively analysed., Results: In total, 439 patients were included in this study. The estimated local recurrence rate (LRR), disease-free survival and overall survival at 5 years post-surgery was 4.9%, 71% and 82% in the CRT + TME group, and 8.6%, 75% and 90% in the TME + LPLND group, respectively. Lateral LRR versus non-lateral LRR was 0.5% versus 4.2% in the CRT + TME group and 1.8% versus 6.2% in the TME + LPLND group. Obturator nerve injury and isolated pelvic abscess were shown only in the TME + LPLND group. Urinary complications were more frequent in the TME + LPLND group than in the CRT + TME group., Conclusion: Disease-free survival was not significantly different after TME with LPLND and after CRT followed by TME. LRR was not significantly different after both strategies; however, there was a trend for higher LRR after TME with LPLND than after CRT followed by TME. Obturator nerve injury, isolated lateral pelvic abscess and urinary complications should be noted when TME with LPLND is applied., (© 2023 Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Objective: To assess the oncological benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in node positive (ypN+) rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and radical surgery., Background: The evidence for AC after total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancer is conflicting and the net survival benefit is debated., Methods: An international multicenter comparative cohort study was performed comparing oncological outcomes in tertiary rectal cancer centers from the Netherlands and France. Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision surgery and with positive lymph nodes on histologic examination (ypN+) were included for analysis. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to compare disease-free (DFS) and overall survival in AC and non-AC groups., Results: Of 1265 patients screened, a total of 239 rectal cancer patients with ypN+ disease were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar in both groups. Higher systemic recurrence rates were observed in the non-AC group compared with those who received AC [32.0% (n=40) vs 17.5% (n=11), respectively, P =0.034]. DFS at 1 and 5 years postoperatively were significantly better in the AC group (92% vs 80% at 1 year; 72% vs 51% at 5 years, P =0.024), whereas no difference in overall survival was observed., Conclusions: In this multicenter comparative cohort study, we identified an oncological benefit of AC in both systemic recurrence and DFS in ypN+ rectal cancer patients. From this data, systemic chemotherapy continues to confer oncological benefit in locally advanced ypN+ rectal cancer., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex operative procedure, reserved for patients with locally advanced and recurrent pelvic malignancies. PE is associated with a high index of post-operative morbidity. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programmes have been successful in improving postoperative outcomes, however, its application in PE has not been studied. The aim of our study is to assess the feasibility and short-term impact of ERAS on PE., Methods: A dedicated PE ERAS programme was developed reflecting the complexity of differing subtypes of PE. A prospective cohort study was undertaken to evaluate the feasibility of implementing our PE ERAS between 2016 and 2020. The primary endpoint of this study was overall compliance with the ERAS programme., Results: 145 patients were enrolled into our PE ERAS programme, with 86 (56.2%) patients undergoing a soft tissue PE, 27 (17.6%) a vascular PE and 32 (20.9%) a bony PE. The median overall compliance to the PE ERAS programme was 70% (IQR 55.5-88.8). There were no observed differences between overall compliance to the PE ERAS programme between different subtypes of PE (p = 0.60). Patients with higher compliance with the PE ERAS programme had a shorter LoS (p < 0.001), less post-operative morbidity (p < 0.001), reduced severity of Clavien-Dindo grade of morbidity (p < 0.001) and fewer readmissions (p = 0.03)., Conclusions: The principles of ERAS can be readily applied to patients undergoing PE, with high adherence to the ERAS programme associated with improved clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)