Colonic J pouch neo‑rectum versus straight anastomosis for low rectal cancers.

AIM: The development of sphincter saving procedures for low carcinoma rectum has been the consequence of oncological and technological factors. The major disadvantage associated with these procedures is the development of anterior resection syndrome because of the resection of rectal reservoir. Colonic J pouch (CJP) neorectum has been practiced as an antidote to overcome this problem. We are working at a tertiary care center, which is a high volume center for rectal cancers. We thought it worthwhile to assess the efficacy of J Pouch neorectum viz.‑a‑viz. a straight coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hospital based prospective randomized study (June 2007‑December 2009) low rectal cancers (4‑12 cm from the anal verge). One group (20 patients) subjected to low/ultralow anterior resection with straight anastomosis (SA) and other group (22 patients) to CJP. The two groups were compared on the basis of functional outcome. RESULTS: Anastomotic leak, strictures, frequency of bowel movements, nocturnal bowel movements, use of retarding medication and incontinence to solids, liquids and gases were seen more in SA group. All these findings were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that CJP has a significant functional advantage over SA and improves the overall quality‑of‑life in patients of low rectal cancers and the advantage persisted over a period of more than 30 months.

Pre-operative staging of rectal cancer using multi-detector row computed tomography with multiplanar reformations: Single center experience.

BACKGROUND: Technical advancement in imaging has helped to stage and plan treatment modality for carcinoma rectum with still some objectives controversial. AIMS: The aim of our study was to evaluate the accuracy of multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) with multiplanar reformations in the pre‑operative staging of rectal carcinoma and correlation with intraoperative and histopathologic staging of retrieved specimen with respect to the depth of tumor invasion (T‑staging), lymph node metastasis (N‑staging) and mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was a prospective one and consisted of 52 patients with biopsy proved rectal carcinoma. MDCT studies were performed on a 64‑slice computed tomography system. Images were reconstructed in axial, coronal and sagittal planes. MDCT findings were compared with intraoperative and pathologic (reference standard) findings. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were assessed. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy of MDCT for T1/T2, T3 and T4 lesions was 77%, 86.5% and 100%, respectively. For perirectal lymph node metastasis (N+), the diagnostic accuracy of MDCT was 84.1%. The diagnostic accuracy of MDCT for MRF involvement was 91%. CONCLUSION: MDCT is a reliable radiological tool for local staging of rectal cancer with excellent accuracy rates for T and N‑staging of rectal cancer.