How to perform an anastomosis following a low anterior resection by transanal total mesorectal excision surgery: from top to bottom techniques.

AIM: The aim was to describe the range of possibilities and our group's clinical outcomes when performing different types of anastomosis during transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME). METHOD: A retrospective analysis was performed based on four taTME series from 2016 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were patients with rectal cancer in whom a sphincter-saving low anterior resection by taTME was performed. Four different techniques were employed for the anastomosis construction: (A) abdominal view, (B) transanal view, (C) hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis and (D) pull-through. Intra-operative and postoperative data were collected and compared. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients were included. Tumour height was lower in groups C and D (4 [3-5] vs. 7 [6-8] group A vs. 6 [5-7] group B, P = 0.000), requiring a hand-sewn anastomosis. A transanal extraction of the specimen was more commonly performed in groups C and D (over 60% vs. 30% in groups A and B, P = 0.000). The rate of temporary stoma was similar between groups A, B and C (ranging from 84% to 98%) but was significantly lower in group D (P = 0.000). The overall rate of complications was similar between groups; however, group D had longer length of stay (15 days vs. 5-6 in groups A, B and C, P = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Every type of anastomosis construction after a taTME procedure seems to be safe and feasible and should be chosen based on surgeon's experience, tumour height and the length of the rectal cuff after the rectal transection. Colorectal surgeons should be familiar with these techniques in order to choose the one that benefits each patient the most.

The impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the surgical management of colorectal cancer: lessons learned from a multicenter study in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: the aim of the study was to analyze the management of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients diagnosed with CRC or undergoing elective surgery during the period of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: a multicenter ambispective analysis was performed in nine centers in Spain during a four-month period. Data were collected from every patient, including changes in treatments, referrals or delays in surgeries, changes in surgical approaches, postoperative outcomes and perioperative SARS-CoV-2 status. The hospital's response to the outbreak and available resources were categorized, and outcomes were divided into periods based on the timeline of the pandemic. RESULTS: a total of 301 patients were included by the study centers and 259 (86 %) underwent surgery. Five hospitals went into phase III during the peak of incidence period, one remained in phase II and three in phase I. More than 60 % of patients suffered some form of change: 48 % referrals, 39 % delays, 4 % of rectal cancer patients had a prolonged interval to surgery and 5 % underwent neoadjuvant treatment. At the time of study closure, 3 % did not undergo surgery. More than 85 % of the patients were tested preoperatively for SARS-CoV-2. A total of nine patients (3 %) developed postoperative pneumonia; three of them had confirmed SARS-CoV-2. The observed surgical complications and mortality rates were similar as expected in a usual situation. CONCLUSIONS: the present multicenter study shows different patterns of response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and collateral effects in managing CRC patients. Knowing these patterns could be useful for planning future changes in surgical departments in preparation for new outbreaks.