Belgian consensus guideline on the management of anal fissures.

Introduction: Acute and chronic anal fissures are common proctological problems that lead to relatively high morbidity and frequent contacts with health care professionals. Multiple treatment options, both topical and surgical, are available, therefore evidence-based guidance is preferred. Methods: A Delphi consensus process was used to review the literature and create relevant statements on the treatment of anal fissures. These statements were discussed and modulated until sufficient agreement was reached. These guidelines were based on the published literature up to January 2023. Results: Anal fissures occur equally in both sexes, mostly between the second and fourth decades of life. Diagnosis can be made based on cardinal symptoms and clinical examination. In case of insufficient relief with conservative treatment options, pharmacological sphincter relaxation is preferred. After 6-8 weeks of topical treatment, surgical options can be explored. Both lateral internal sphincterotomy as well as fissurectomy are well-established surgical techniques, both with specific benefits and risks. Conclusions: The current guidelines for the management of anal fissures include recommendations for the clinical evaluation of anal fissures, and their conservative, topical and surgical management.

Boerhaave's syndrome: successful conservative treatment in two patients.

The Boerhaave syndrome is a spontaneous, post-emetic rupture of the esophagus and a rare but potentially fatal cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. There are currently no guidelines on the optimal treatment of these patients, although there is a strong tendency towards a surgical approach. We present 2 cases of male patients, 66- and 77-year old respectively, both admitted to the emergency department with hematemesis. Unexpectedly, these turned out to be caused by the Boerhaave syndrome. Based on the severity of presentation, either a conservative or endoscopic treatment was adopted, both with good outcome.

The risk of definitive stoma formation at 10 years after low and ultralow anterior resection for rectal cancer.

AIM: The long-term risk of definitive stoma after sphincter-saving resection (SSR) for rectal cancer is underestimated and has never been reported for ultralow conservative surgery. We report the 10-year risk of definitive stoma after SSR for low rectal cancer. METHOD: From 1994 to 2008, patients with low rectal cancer who were suitable for SSR were analysed retrospectively. Patients were divided into the following four groups: low colorectal anastomosis (LCRA); coloanal anastomosis (CAA); partial intersphincteric resection (pISR); and total intersphincteric resection (tISR). The end-point was the risk of a definitive stoma according to the type of anastomosis. RESULTS: During the study period, 297 patients had SSR for low rectal cancer. The incidence of definitive stoma increased from 11% at 1 year to 22% at 10 years. The reasons were no closure of the loop ileostomy (4.7%), anastomotic morbidity (6.5%), anal incontinence (8%) and local recurrence (5.2%). The risk of definitive stoma was not influenced by type of surgery: 26% vs 18% vs 18% vs 19% (P = 0.578) for LCRA, CAA, pISR and tISR, respectively. Independent risk factors for definitive stoma were age > 65 years and surgical morbidity. CONCLUSION: The risk of a definitive stoma after SSR increased two-fold between 1 and 10 years after surgery, from 11% to 22%. Ultralow conservative surgery (pISR and tISR) did not increase the risk of definitive stoma compared with conventional CAA or LCRA.

Relief of obstructed defecation syndrome after stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR): a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) is a promising new treatment for obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) associated with rectal intussusception and/or rectocele. The aim of this work was to assess the efficacy of STARR to treat ODS. METHODS: Outcome data after STARR for ODS were pooled according to the used constipation score. As different types of constipation scores were reported, and standardized effect sizes were calculated before performing a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-six publications were identified with a median follow-up of 12 months (range: 3-42). In total 1298 patients were included. Six different scoring systems were used. In total 43 estimates of the effect STARR were analyzed. All studies showed a significant improvement in ODS yielding a combined standardized effect size of 3.8 (95% CI : 3.2-4.5). Although a very high degree of heterogeneity between effect sizes has been observed (I2 = 93.3%), suggesting an overestimation of this improvement. This is partially due to the use of various instruments, but largely originating from (unmeasured) study characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The consistent finding of a decrease in the various ODS-scores confirms that STARR can reduce ODS but the effect is overestimated. This meta-analysis clearly highlights some methodological shortcomings in published data. Heterogeneity in ODS scoring implies the need for standard effect size calculation to compare published results, and underlines the urgent need for a more uniform and accurate data reporting.

Laparoscopy for pelvic floor disorders.

Surgical treatment of pelvic floor disorders has significantly evolved during the last decade, with increasing understanding of anatomy, pathophysiology and the minimally-invasive 'revolution' of laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic pelvic floor repair requires a thorough knowledge of pelvic floor anatomy and its supportive components before repair of defective anatomy is possible. Several surgical procedures have been introduced and applied to treat rectal prolapse syndromes. Transabdominal procedures include a variety of rectopexies with the use of sutures or prosthesis and with or without resection of redundant sigmoid colon. Unfortunately there is lack of one generally accepted standard treatment technique. This article will focus on recent advances in the management of pelvic floor disorders affecting defecation, with a brief overview of contemporary concepts in pelvic floor anatomy and different laparoscopic treatment options.

Lessons learned after more than 400 laparoscopic ventral rectopexies.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral recto(colpo)pexy (LVR) is a minimally invasive, autonomic nerve-sparing technique to treat rectal prolapse syndromes. The position of the mesh on the anterior aspect of the rectum in the rectovaginal septum allows correction of concomitant rectocele and enterocele. METHODS: Demographic, perioperative, and follow-up data of consecutive patients were analyzed in order to audit our 10-years' experience with the technique. RESULTS: From January 1999 to December 2008, 405 patients (93% female) underwent LVR for internal rectal prolapse (45.9%, n = 186), total rectal prolapse (43%, n = 174) and rectocele or enterocele (11.1%, n = 45). Mean age was 54.6 years (SD 15). The median hospital stay was 4 days (range 2-21). Conversion rate was 2%. There was no postoperative mortality. At a mean follow-up of 25.3 months, recurrence was observed in 4.6% (19 patients). Most often detachment of the mesh at the sacral promontory was found. Late complications occurred in 18% of patients. In five patients, LVR combined with perineotomy was complicated by mesh erosion into the vagina. Mesh erosion was not observed after LVR without perineotomy. Symptomatic improvement was observed in 85% of patients with total rectal prolapse and in 70% of patients with internal rectal prolapse (p < 0.050). The difference was mainly due to a lesser effect on obstructed defecation symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: LVR, with or without perineotomy, appears to be safe and feasible, with relatively low morbidity. Functional outcome data support its efficacy. The indication for LVR in patients with internal rectal prolapse could be optimised.

Laparoscopic sigmoid resection with transrectal specimen extraction: a systematic review.

AIM: A systematic review was performed to identify differences in surgical technique, postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay and safety for procedures involving left-sided laparoscopic colectomy with natural orifice specimen extraction. METHOD: A PubMed search was performed to retrieve studies reporting on left-sided laparoscopic colorectal resection with transrectal specimen extraction. The quality of the different reports was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Six studies were included and all but one were cohort studies. Studies on transanal, transvaginal or transcolonic specimen extraction were excluded, as were reports on paediatric surgery. RESULTS: Six papers (including 94 patients) fulfilled the search criteria. The techniques reported were not standardized and this technical heterogeneity hampered pooled analysis. A meta-analysis could also not be performed because of differences in inter-study methods, study population and results. All studies showed, nevertheless, that the technique is feasible with low morbidity and short postoperative hospital stay. No anal dysfunction was reported. CONCLUSION: To date, the evidence in favour of left-sided laparoscopic colectomy with transrectal specimen extraction is weak (level IV-V). Future clinical research should focus on standardization of the technique. Randomized controlled trials are necessary to show the superiority of this approach with regard to postoperative pain and morbidity, hospital stay, recovery, function and cosmesis.