Biofeedback Therapy Before Ileostomy Closure in Patients Undergoing Sphincter-Saving Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE: This study prospectively investigated the effects of biofeedback therapy on objective anorectal function and subjective bowel function in patients after sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer. METHODS: Sixteen patients who underwent an ileostomy were randomized into two groups, one receiving conservative management with the Kegel maneuver and the other receiving active biofeedback before ileostomy closure. Among them, 12 patients (mean age, 57.5 years; range, 38 to 69 years; 6 patients in each group) completed the study. Conservative management included lifestyle modifications, Kegel exercises, and medication. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after ileostomy closure by using anal manometry, modified Wexner Incontinence Scores (WISs), and fecal incontinence quality of life (FI-QoL) scores. RESULTS: Before the ileostomy closure, the groups did not differ in baseline clinical characteristics or resting manometric parameters. After 12 months of follow-up, the biofeedback group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the mean maximum squeezing pressure (from 146.3 to 178.9, P = 0.002). However, no beneficial effect on the WIS was noted for biofeedback compared to conservative management alone. Overall, the FI-QoL scores were increased significantly in both groups after ileostomy closure (P = 0.006), but did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Although the biofeedback therapy group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the maximum squeezing pressure, significant improvements in the WISs and the FI-QoL scores over time were noted in both groups. The study was terminated early because no therapeutic benefit of biofeedback had been demonstrated.

Erratum: Biofeedback Therapy Before Ileostomy Closure in Patients Undergoing Sphincter-Saving Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Pilot Study

In this article, the sixth author's affiliation was misprinted unintentionally.

Rectourethral Fistula: Systemic Review of and Experiences With Various Surgical Treatment Methods

PURPOSE: A rectourethral fistula (RUF) is an uncommon complication resulting from surgery, radiation or trauma. Although various surgical procedures for the treatment of an RUF have been described, none has gained acceptance as the procedure of choice. The aim of this study was to review our experience with surgical management of RUF. METHODS: The outcomes of 6 male patients (mean age, 51 years) with an RUF who were operated on by a single surgeon between May 2005 and July 2012 were assessed. RESULTS: The causes of the RUF were iatrogenic in four cases (two after radiation therapy for rectal cancer, one after brachytherapy for prostate cancer, and one after surgery for a bladder stone) and traumatic in two cases. Fecal diversion was the initial treatment in five patients. In one patient, fecal diversion was performed simultaneously with definitive repair. Four patients underwent staged repair after a mean of 12 months. Rectal advancement flaps were done for simple, small fistula (n = 2), and flap interpositions (gracilis muscle flap, n = 2; omental flap, n = 1) were done for complex or recurrent fistulae. Urinary strictures and incontinence were observed in patients after gracilis muscle flap interposition, but they were resolved with simple treatments. The mean follow-up period was 28 months, and closure of the fistula was achieved in all five patients (100%) who underwent definitive repairs. The fistula persisted in one patient who refused further definitive surgery after receiving only a fecal diversion. CONCLUSION: Depending on the severity and the recurrence status of RUF, a relatively simple rectal advancement flap repair or a more complex gracilis muscle or omental flap interposition can be used to achieve closure of the fistula.

Individualized Cutoff Value of the Preoperative Carcinoembryonic Antigen Level is Necessary for Optimal Use as a Prognostic Marker

PURPOSE: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is an important prognostic marker in colorectal cancer (CRC). However, in some stages, it does not work. We performed this study to find a way in which preoperative CEA could be used as a constant prognostic marker in harmony with the TNM staging system. METHODS: Preoperative CEA levels and recurrences in CRC were surveyed. The distribution of CEA levels and the recurrences in each TNM stage of CRC were analyzed. An optimal cutoff value for each TNM stage was calculated and tested for validity as a prognostic marker within the TNM staging system. RESULTS: The conventional cutoff value of CEA (5 ng/mL) was an independent prognostic factor on the whole. However, when evaluated in subgroups, it was not a prognostic factor in stage I or stage III of N2. A subgroup analysis according to TNM stage revealed different CEA distributions and recurrence rates corresponding to different CEA ranges. The mean CEA levels were higher in advanced stages. In addition, the recurrence rates of corresponding CEA ranges were higher in advanced stages. Optimal cutoff values from the receiver operating characteristic curves were 7.4, 5.5, and 4.5 ng/mL for TNM stage I, II, and III, respectively. Those for N0, N1, and N2 stages were 5.5, 4.8, and 3.5 ng/mL, respectively. The 5-year disease-free survivals were significantly different according to these cutoff values for each TNM and N stage. The multivariate analysis confirmed the new cutoff values to be more efficient in discriminating the prognosis in the subgroups of the TNM stages. CONCLUSION: Individualized cutoff values of the preoperative CEA level are a more practical prognostic marker following and in harmony with the TNM staging system.

Individualized Cutoff Value of the Preoperative Carcinoembryonic Antigen Level is Necessary for Optimal Use as a Prognostic Marker

PURPOSE: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is an important prognostic marker in colorectal cancer (CRC). However, in some stages, it does not work. We performed this study to find a way in which preoperative CEA could be used as a constant prognostic marker in harmony with the TNM staging system. METHODS: Preoperative CEA levels and recurrences in CRC were surveyed. The distribution of CEA levels and the recurrences in each TNM stage of CRC were analyzed. An optimal cutoff value for each TNM stage was calculated and tested for validity as a prognostic marker within the TNM staging system. RESULTS: The conventional cutoff value of CEA (5 ng/mL) was an independent prognostic factor on the whole. However, when evaluated in subgroups, it was not a prognostic factor in stage I or stage III of N2. A subgroup analysis according to TNM stage revealed different CEA distributions and recurrence rates corresponding to different CEA ranges. The mean CEA levels were higher in advanced stages. In addition, the recurrence rates of corresponding CEA ranges were higher in advanced stages. Optimal cutoff values from the receiver operating characteristic curves were 7.4, 5.5, and 4.5 ng/mL for TNM stage I, II, and III, respectively. Those for N0, N1, and N2 stages were 5.5, 4.8, and 3.5 ng/mL, respectively. The 5-year disease-free survivals were significantly different according to these cutoff values for each TNM and N stage. The multivariate analysis confirmed the new cutoff values to be more efficient in discriminating the prognosis in the subgroups of the TNM stages. CONCLUSION: Individualized cutoff values of the preoperative CEA level are a more practical prognostic marker following and in harmony with the TNM staging system.

Analysis of Risk Factors for the Development of Incisional and Parastomal Hernias in Patients after Colorectal Surgery

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the overall rate and risk factors for the development of an incisional hernia and a parastomal hernia after colorectal surgery. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of 795 consecutive patients who underwent open colorectal surgery between 2005 and 2007 by a single surgeon. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. RESULTS: The overall incidence of incisional hernias was 2% (14/690). This study revealed that the cumulative incidences of incisional hernia were 1% at 12 months and 3% after 36 months. Eighty-six percent of all incisional hernias developed within 3 years after a colectomy. The overall rate of parastomal hernias in patients with a stoma was 6.7% (7/105). The incidence of parastomal hernias was significantly higher in the colostomy group than in the ileostomy group (11.9% vs. 0%; P = 0.007). Obesity, abdominal aortic aneurysm, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, serum albumin level, emergency surgery and postoperative ileus did not influence the incidence of incisional or parastomal hernias. However, the multivariate analysis revealed that female gender and wound infection were significant risk factors for the development of incisional hernias female: P = 0.009, wound infection: P = 0.041). There were no significant factors related to the development of parastomal hernias. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that most incisional hernias develop within 3 years after a colectomy. Female gender and wound infection were risk factors for the development of an incisional hernia after colorectal surgery. In contrast, no significant factors were found to be associated with the development of a parastomal hernia.