Exploring the Efficacy of the Paula Method of Muscle Exercises in Managing Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Using an Integrative Approach: A Preliminary Study.

Background: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is a post-proctectomy consequence characterized by variable and unpredictable bowel function, including clustering, urgency, and incontinence, which significantly impacts the quality of life. Currently, there is no established gold-standard therapy for LARS. Primary Study Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Paula method of exercise as part of an integrative treatment approach for patients with LARS. Design: This preliminary study utilized a single-arm pretest-posttest design. Setting: The study was conducted at a tertiary care medical center. Participants: Five patients diagnosed with LARS completed the study. Intervention: Participants underwent twelve weeks of individualized Paula method exercise sessions. Two questionnaires were employed to assess the severity of LARS and quality of life. Primary Outcome Measures: (1) Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) Score; (2) Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Bowel Function Instrument (MSK-BFI); (3) Global Quality-of-Life (QOLS) Score . Results: All participants completing the 12-week Paula exercise regimen reported no difficulty in engaging with the exercises. Statistically significant improvements were observed in both the LARS score and MSK-BFI (P = .039 and P = .043, respectively, Wilcoxon Rank Sum test). While there were improvements in the global quality-of-life score and functional scales of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, these improvements did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: This preliminary study suggests that patients with LARS can successfully complete a 12-week exercise program using the Paula method, resulting in improved LARS scores. However, further investigation through larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trials is necessary to establish the efficacy of these exercises as a treatment for LARS.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Low Anterior Resection Syndrome following Trans-Anal Total Mesorectal Excision.

BACKGROUND: Trans-anal total mesorectal excision (Ta-TME) is a novel approach for the resection of rectal cancer. Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is a frequent functional disorder that might follow restorative proctectomy. Data regarding bowel function after Ta-TME are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for the development of LARS following Ta-TME. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of all patients who underwent Ta-TME for rectal cancer at our institution was reviewed. All patients who were operated on from January 2018 to December 2021 were evaluated. The LARS score questionnaire was used via telephone interviews. Incidence, severity and risk factors for LARS were evaluated. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients underwent Ta-TME for rectal cancer between January 2018 and December 2021. Thirty-five patients were excluded due to ostomy status, death, local disease recurrence, ileal pouch or lack of compliance. Fifty patients were included in the analysis. LARS was diagnosed in 76% of patients. Anastomosis distance from dentate line was identified as a risk factor for LARS via multivariate analysis (p = 0.042). Neo-adjuvant therapy, hand sewn anastomosis and anastomotic leak did not increase the risk of LARS. CONCLUSION: LARS is a frequent condition following ta-TME, as it is used for other approaches to low anterior resection. Anastomosis distance from dentate line is an independent risk factor for LARS. In this study neo-adjuvant therapy, hand sewn anastomosis and anastomotic leak did not increase the risk of LARS. Further studies with longer follow-up times are required to better understand the functional outcomes following Ta-TME.

A patient tailored approach to the surgical treatment of hemorrhoids leads to equal satisfaction following hemorrhoidectomy, stapled hemorrhoidopexy or a combination of both.

PURPOSE: Up to 20% of patients suffering from symptomatic hemorrhoids will require surgery. Excisional hemorrhoidectomy (EH) and stapled hemorrhoidopexy (SH) are both standard and safe procedures. While SH has a short-term advantage of faster recovery and lower postoperative pain, its long-term efficacy is debatable. This study aims to compare the outcomes of EH, SH, and a combined procedure of both. METHODS: A retrospective study compared the outcomes of patients treated surgically for hemorrhoids over a 5-year period. Eligible patients were asked by phone to complete a questionnaire evaluating recurrent symptoms, fecal incontinence, satisfaction, and self-assessed improvement in quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: This study included 362 patients, of whom 215 underwent SH, 99 underwent EH, and 48 underwent a combined procedure. No statistically significant differences were found between groups regarding complications, symptoms recurrence, or fecal incontinence. Combined procedure patients had significantly higher self-assessed improvement in QOL (P=0.04). CONCLUSION: In patients with symptomatic hemorrhoids, a tailored approach to symptomatic hemorrhoids is associated with high satisfaction rates and self-assessed improvement in QOL.

Urinary dysfunction in women following total mesorectal excision versus partial mesorectal excision for treatment of rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a condition which is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to assess urinary dysfunction and its effect on quality of life in women who underwent total mesorectal excision compared to women treated by partial mesorectal excision for treatment of rectal cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary university hospital between January 2014 and December 2019. A comparison was performed between women who underwent total mesorectal excision as opposed to partial mesorectal excision for treatment of rectal cancer. Pre-operative, intra-operative and post-operative data were compared between groups. Data regarding radiation therapy was recorded and compared as well. Urinary dysfunction and its impact on quality of life were assessed using UDI-6 and USIQ questionnaires. Further univariate and multivariate analyses were performed in the attempt of assessing risk factors for urinary dysfunction. RESULTS: A total of 107 women were included in the study, 73 women underwent partial mesorectal excision as opposed to 34 women who were treated by total mesorectal excision. Twenty-five women in the TME group underwent radiation therapy prior to surgery as opposed to none in the PME group (p < 0.001). Urinary dysfunction following surgery as assessed using the UDI-6 questionnaire did not differ between groups. Similar findings were recorded with regard to the impact of urinary dysfunction on quality of life as assessed using the USIQ questionnaire. Following multivariate analysis longer hospital stay was associated with increased risk of some degree of urinary dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Women undergoing total mesorectal excision have comparable results to partial mesorectal excision with regard to urinary dysfunction.