'I was trying to get there, but I couldn't': social norms, vulnerability and lived experiences of home delivery in Mashonaland Central Province, Zimbabwe.

Increasing facility-based delivery rates is pivotal to reach Sustainable Development Goals to improve skilled attendance at birth and reduce maternal and neonatal mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The translation of global health initiatives into national policy and programmes has increased facility-based deliveries in LMICs, but little is known about the impact of such policies on social norms from the perspective of women who continue to deliver at home. This qualitative study explores the reasons for and experiences of home delivery among women living in rural Zimbabwe. We analysed qualitative data from 30 semi-structured interviews and 5 focus group discussions with women who had delivered at home in the previous 6 months in Mashonaland Central Province. We found evidence of strong community-level social norms in favour of facility-based delivery. However, despite their expressed intention to deliver at a facility, women described how multiple, interacting vulnerabilities resulted in delivery outside of a health facility. While identified as having delivered 'at home', narratives of birth experiences revealed the majority of women in our study delivered 'on the road', en route to the health facility. Strong norms for facility-based delivery created punishments and stigmatization for home delivery, which introduced additional risk to women at the time of delivery and in the postnatal period. These consequences for breaking social norms promoting facility-based delivery for all further increased the vulnerability of women who delivered at home or on the road. Our findings highlight that equitable public health policy and programme designs should include efforts to actively identify, mitigate and evaluate unintended consequences of social change created as a by-product of promoting positive health behaviours among those most vulnerable who are unable to comply.

Reversal of Hartmann's procedure in patients following failed colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: an analysis of 45 consecutive cases.

AIM: This study aimed to assess outcomes of Hartmann's reversal (HR) after failure of previous colorectal anastomosis (CRA) or coloanal anastomosis (CAA). METHODS: All patients planned for HR from 1997 to 2018 following the failure of previous CRA or CAA were included. RESULTS: From 1997 to 2018, 45 HRs were planned following failed CRA or CAA performed for rectal cancer (n = 19, 42%), diverticulitis (n = 16, 36%), colon cancer (n = 4, 9%), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 2, 4%) or other aetiologies (n = 4, 9%). In two (4%) patients, HR could not be performed. HR was performed in 43/45 (96%) patients with stapled CRA (n = 24, 53%), delayed handsewn CAA with colonic pull-through (n = 11, 24%), standard handsewn CAA (n = 6, 14%) or stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (n = 2, 4%). One (2%) patient died postoperatively. Overall postoperative morbidity rate was 44%, including 27% of patients with severe postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3). After a mean follow-up of 38 ± 30 months (range 1-109), 35/45 (78%) patients presented without stoma. Multivariate analysis identified a remnant rectal stump < 7.5 cm in length as the only independent risk factor for long-term persistent stoma. Among stoma-free patients, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score was ≤ 20 (normal) in 43%, between 21 and 29 (minor LARS) in 33% and ≥ 30 (major LARS) in 24% of the patients. CONCLUSION: HR can be recommended in patients following a failed CRA or CAA. It permits 78% of patients to be free of stoma. A short length of the remnant rectal stump is the only predictive factor of persistent stoma in these patients.

Is follow-up still mandatory more than 5 years after surgery for colorectal cancer?

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess if to prolong follow-up (FU) more than 5 years after surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) is justified or not. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery for a CRC before 2013 and without any tumor recurrence (or synchronous metastases) during the first 5 years after surgery were identified from our database and included. RESULTS: Between 1996 and 2012, 121 patients operated for rectal (RC) (median of FU of 84 months; range 60-211) and 97 with colonic cancer (CC) (median of FU of 78 months; range 60-139), without any tumor recurrence (or synchronous metastases) during the first 5 years after surgery, presented a late tumor recurrence: 13/121 RC (10.7%) versus 2/97 CC (2.1%) (p = 0.014); 8/13 recurrences in RC (61.5%) were observed after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy, and 9/13 (69.2%) in pN0 tumors. Among the 13 recurrences, 3 had both local and metastatic recurrences (23%), 5 an isolated local recurrence (38.5%) and 5 an isolated metastatic recurrence (38.5%). After surgery for CC, the 2 recurrences were observed in patients with T3N0 tumors. CONCLUSION: After surgery for a CRC, in patients without tumor recurrence during the first 5 years after surgery, follow-up after 5 years must be continued in rectal cancer patients because of a 10.7% rate of late recurrence. On the opposite, after surgery for colon cancer the 2% rate of late recurrence after 5 years suggested that only patients with pT3-T4 colonic cancer could probably be followed more than 5 years after surgery.

Hospital stay for temporary stoma closure is shortened by C-reactive protein monitoring: a prospective case-matched study.

BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein (CRP) has been suggested as a satisfactory early marker of postoperative complications after colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of a CRP monitoring-driven discharge strategy, after stoma reversal following laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer. METHODS: Eighty-eight patients who had stoma reversal between June 2016 and April 2018 had CRP serum level monitoring on postoperative day (POD) 3 and, if necessary, on POD5. Patients were discharged on POD4 if the CRP level was < 100 mg/L. Patients were matched [according to age, gender, body mass index, neoadjuvant pelvic irradiation, type of anastomosis (stapled or manual), and adjuvant chemotherapy] to 109 identical control patients who had stoma reversal between 2012 and 2016 with the same postoperative care but without CRP monitoring. RESULTS: Postoperative 30-day overall morbidity [CRP group: 12/88 (14%) vs controls: 11/109, (10%), p = 0.441] and severe morbidity rates (i.e. Dindo 3-4) [CRP group: 2/88 (2%) vs controls: 2/109 (2%), p = 0.838] were similar between groups. Mean length of stay was significantly shorter in the CRP group (CRP group: 4.6 ± 1.3 vs controls: 5.8 ± 1.8 days; p < 0.001). Discharge occurred before POD5 in 59/88 (67%) CRP patients vs 15/109 (14%) controls (p < 0.001). The unplanned rehospitalization rate [CRP group: 6/88 (7%) vs controls: 4/109 (4%), p = 0.347] was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients having temporary stoma closure after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, postoperative CRP monitoring is associated with a significant shortening of hospital stay without increasing morbidity or rehospitalization rates.

What is the outcome for patients undergoing more than two ileocolonic resections for recurrent Crohn's disease? A comparative study of 569 consecutive procedures.

AIM: To assess the outcome for patients undergoing repeated ileocolonic resection for recurrent Crohn's disease (CD). METHOD: All patients undergoing ileocolonic resection for terminal ileal CD between 1998 and 2016 in our tertiary care centre were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Between 1998 and 2016, 569 ileocolonic resections were performed for CD: 403 of these were primary resections (1R, 71%), 107 second resections (2R, 19%) and 59 were third (or more) resections (> 2R, 10%). The laparoscopic approach rate was significantly less in the > 2R group (20/59, 34%) compared with the 2R (71/107, 66%; P = 0.002) and 1R (366/403, 91%) groups. However, conversion to an open approach did not show any difference between the three groups [1R group 46/366 (13%) vs 2R group 14/71 (20%) vs > 2R group 3/20 (15%); 1R vs > 2R P = 0.750; 2R vs > 2R P = 0.633]. Postoperative morbidity was significantly increased in the > 2R (28/59, 52%) group compared with the 1R group (115/403, 29%; P < 0.001) but showed no difference compared with the 2R group (43/107, 40%; P = 0.365). There was no difference between the groups in the incidence of severe postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) [1R group n = 24 (6%); 2R group n = 6 (6%); > 2R group n = 4, 7%; 1R vs > 2R P = 0.865, 2R vs > 2R P = 0.761]. CONCLUSION: Although the overall morbidity rate was higher, repeated surgery for recurrent CD in patients undergoing three or more ileocolonic resections was not associated with an increased risk of severe postoperative morbidity in our series.

Redo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: outcomes from a case-controlled study.

AIM: To assess short- and long-term outcomes of redo ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (redo-IPAA) for failed IPAA, comparing them with those of successful IPAA. METHOD: This was a case-control study. Data were collected retrospectively from prospectively maintained databases from two tertiary care centres. Patients who had a redo-IPAA between 1999 and 2016 were identified and matched (1:2) with patients who had a primary IPAA (p-IPAA), according to diagnosis, age and body mass index. RESULTS: Thirty-nine redo-IPAAs (16 transanal and 23 abdominal procedures) were identified, and were matched with 78 p-IPAAs. After a mean follow-up of 56 ± 51  (2.6-190) months, failure rates after transanal and abdominal approaches were 50% and 15%, respectively. Reoperation after the transanal approach was higher than after p-IPAA (69% vs 7%; P < 0.001). No differences were noted between the abdominal approach for redo-IPAA and p-IPAA in terms of morbidity (61% for redo-IPAA vs 38% for p-IPAA; P = 0.06), major morbidity (9% vs 8%; P = 0.96), anastomotic leakage (13% vs 10%; P = 0.74), mean daily bowel movements (6 vs 5.5; P = 0.68), night-time bowel movements (1.2 vs 1; P = 0.51), faecal incontinence (13% vs 7%; P = 0.40), urgency (31% vs 27%; P = 0.59), use of anti-diarrhoeal drugs (47% vs 37%; P = 0.70), mean Cleveland Global Quality-of-Life score (7 vs 7; P = 0.83) or sexual function. CONCLUSION: The abdominal approach for redo-IPAA is justified in cases of pouch failure because it achieves functional results comparable with those observed after p-IPAA, without higher postoperative morbidity. The transanal approach should be chosen sparingly.

Is trans-anal total mesorectal excision really safe and better than laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with a perineal approach first in patients with low rectal cancer? A learning curve with case-matched study in 68 patients.

AIM: To compare the learning curve for trans-anal total mesorectal excision (TATME) with laparoscopic TME started by a perineal approach (LTME). METHOD: The first 34 consecutive patients who underwent TATME for low rectal cancer were matched with LTME (performed by the same surgeon) for gender, body mass index and chemoradiation. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients undergoing TATME (23 men; 58 ± 14 years) were matched with 34 undergoing LTME (23 men; 59 ± 13 years). Intra-operative complications occurred more frequently during TATME (21%) than LTME (6%), but this difference was not significant (P = 0.07). The complications of TATME included rectal (n = 4), bladder (n = 1) and vaginal (n = 1) injury and bleeding (n = 1). Length of stay and postoperative overall and major morbidities were similar between groups. Early symptomatic anastomotic leakage (AL) occurred in 1/34 TATME and 5/34 LTME (15%; P = 0.02) procedures. Asymptomatic AL occurred in four TATME (12%) and four LTME (12%, P = 1). Thus, the overall rate of AL was 5/34 (15%) for TATME vs 9/34 (26%) for LTME (P = 0.4). No significant difference between the two groups was noted with regard to tumour, number of harvested and positive lymph nodes, R1 resection rate or completeness of the mesorectum. Metastatic recurrence was similar between groups (15% vs 18%, P = 0.7), but follow-up was shorter after TATME (13 ± 6 months) than after LTME (25 ± 14 months; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The TATME learning curve seems to be associated with a significant rate of intra-operative complications. Because no significant benefit has been reported to date, more evidence is needed before TATME can be considered as a better approach than laparoscopic TME with a perineal approach first in patients with low rectal cancer.

Anastomotic leakage after side-to-end anastomosis for rectal cancer: does leakage location matter?

AIM: To assess outcome according to location of anastomotic leakage (AL) after side-to-end stapler or manual low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis following laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. METHODS: All patients presenting with symptomatic or asymptomatic AL after TME and side-to-end low anastomosis for rectal cancer performed from 2005 to 2014 were identified from our prospective database. CT-scans with contrast enema were reviewed to assess location of AL origin. RESULTS: Among 279 patients who underwent TME with side-to-end anastomosis from 2005 to 2014, 70 patients presented with AL and were included: 43 (61%) patients with AL on the circular anastomosis (CAL) were compared to 27 (39%) with AL on the transverse stapling line of the colonic stump (TAL). CAL and TAL were associated with similar rates of symptomatic AL (63% versus 48%, respectively; p=0.339), severe postoperative morbidity rate (33% versus 18%; p=0.313), and long-term outcomes, including definitive stoma rate (10 versus 11%; p=0.622), and major low anterior resection syndrome rate (56% vs 57%; p=0.961). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that whatever the location of AL on a side-to-end low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis after TME for cancer, both short and long-term outcomes are similar. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in laparoscopic colorectal surgery improves postoperative pain management: a meta-analysis.

AIM: Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is a locoregional anaesthesia technique of growing interest in abdominal surgery. However, its efficacy following laparoscopic colorectal surgery is still debated. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of TAP block after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHOD: All comparative studies focusing on TAP block after laparoscopic colorectal surgery have been systematically identified through the MEDLINE database, reviewed and included. Meta-analysis was performed according to the Mantel-Haenszel method for random effects. End-points included postoperative opioid consumption, morbidity, time to first bowel movement and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies, including 7 randomized controlled trials, were included, comprising a total of 600 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery with TAP block, compared with 762 patients without TAP block. Meta-analysis of these studies showed that TAP block was associated with a significantly reduced postoperative opioid consumption on the first day after surgery [weighted mean difference (WMD) -14.54 (-25.14; -3.94); P = 0.007] and a significantly shorter time to first bowel movement [WMD -0.53 (-0.61; -0.44); P < 0.001] but failed to show any impact on length of hospital stay [WMD -0.32 (-0.83; 0.20); P = 0.23] although no study considered length of stay as its primary outcome. Finally, TAP block was not associated with a significant increase in the postoperative overall complication rate [OR = 0.84 (0.62-1.14); P = 0.27]. CONCLUSION: Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in laparoscopic colorectal surgery improves postoperative opioid consumption and recovery of postoperative digestive function without any significant drawback.

Risk factors for prolonged postoperative ileus after laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: an analysis of 428 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) is a common complication after colorectal resection but data regarding PPOI risk factors after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery is lacking. This study aimed to identify risk factors for PPOI after laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision (TME) for cancer. METHODS: All patients who underwent a laparoscopic sphincter-saving TME for cancer from 2005 to 2014 were identified from our prospective database. PPOI was defined as abdominal distension, nausea, and/or vomiting, requiring a nasogastric tube insertion, during the postoperative period. RESULTS: Among 428 consecutive patients, 65 patients (15%) presented with POI. In multivariate analysis, male gender (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.3 [1.1-4.5]; p = 0.026, age >70 years (OR: 2.0 [1.1-4.0]; p = 0.037)], conversion to open approach (OR 4.9 [1.5-15.4]; p = 0.007), and intra-abdominal surgical site infection (OR 3.8 [1.9-7.5]; p < 0.001) were identified as independent risk factor for PPOI. PPOI risk was 5% in patients without any risk factor but raised to 11, 28, and 54% in patients with 1, 2, or ≥3 risk factors, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PPOI is observed in 15% of the patients after laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer. We identified four independent factors for PPOI in multivariate analysis: male, gender, age >70, conversion to open approach, and intra-abdominal surgical site infection, leading to the construction of a simple and pragmatic predictive score. This score might help the surgeon to assess patient at risk of PPOI.

Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis for Dysplasia or Cancer Complicating Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Is Total Mesorectal Excision Always Mandatory? An Analysis of 36 Consecutive Patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The extent of lymph node harvesting during surgery for colorectal neoplasm [dysplasia and/or cancer] complicating inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is a matter of debate. This study aimed to assess the risk of invasive rectal cancer in patients undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis [IPAA] for colonic neoplasm complicating IBD, and thus to clarify whether a systematic total mesorectal excision [TME] should be systematically performed, or not, in those patients. METHODS: From 1998 to 2015, all patients who underwent IPAA for colorectal neoplasm complicating IBD were included. Patients with preoperatively known rectal cancer were excluded. Pathological results were compared with preoperative endoscopic results. RESULTS: A totalof 36 patients [mean age 49 ± 14 years], comprising 10 women [31%] and 26 men [69%], underwent IPAA for colorectal neoplasm complicating IBD, with [n = 8; 22%] or without [n = 28; 78%] TME. Rectal cancer rate in pathological specimens was 0% [0/20] in patients with preoperatively known neoplasm only limited to the colon, 0% [0/8] among patients with preoperative rectal low-grade dysplasia, and 62% [5/8] among patients with preoperatively rectal high-grade dysplasia. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support systematic TME during IPAA for colonic neoplasm complicating IBD. Considering its association with postoperative sexual disorder, TME should be discussed only on a case-by-case basis.

Immunomodulatory Activity of VEGF in Cancer.

The ability of tumor cells to escape tumor immunosurveillance contributes to cancer development. Factors produced in the tumor microenvironment create "tolerizing" conditions and thereby help the tumor to evade antitumoral immune responses. VEGF-A, already known for its major role in tumor vessel growth (neoangiogenesis), was recently identified as a key factor in tumor-induced immunosuppression. In particular, VEGF-A fosters the proliferation of immunosuppressive cells, limits T-cell recruitment into tumors, and promotes T-cell exhaustion. Antiangiogenic therapies have shown significant efficacy in patients with a variety of solid tumors, preventing tumor progression by limiting tumor-induced angiogenesis. VEGF-targeting therapies have also been shown to modulate the tumor-induced immunosuppressive microenvironment, enhancing Th1-type T-cell responses and increasing tumor infiltration by T cells. The immunomodulatory properties of VEGF-targeting therapies open up new perspectives for cancer treatment, especially through strategies combining antiangiogenic drugs with immunotherapy. Preclinical models and early clinical studies of these combined approaches have given promising results.

Is the benefit of laparoscopy maintained in elderly patients undergoing rectal cancer resection? An analysis of 446 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: Several studies showed that age is significantly associated with impaired outcomes after open colorectal surgery. However, very few data exist on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery in elderly patients. The aim of this study was to assess operative results of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery according to age. METHODS: From 2005 to 2014, 446 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic rectal cancer resection were identified from a prospective database. Five groups were defined: age <45 (n = 44), 45-54 (n = 80), 55-64 (n = 166), 65-74 (n = 95) and ≥75 years (n = 61). RESULTS: Elderly patients presented significantly higher ASA score (p = 0.004), higher Charlson comorbidity index (p < 0.0001) and more frequent cardiovascular, pulmonary (p < 0.0001) and neurological (p = 0.03) comorbidities. Overall postoperative morbidity rate was similar between groups (34-35-37-43-43 %, p = 0.70). Medical morbidity slightly increased with age (14-9-14-19-26 %, p = 0.06), but there was no significant difference regarding clinical anastomotic leakage, surgical morbidity, major morbidity (Dindo ≥3), cardiopulmonary complications and length of hospital stay. In multivariate analysis, age was not an independent factor for postoperative morbidity, unlike ASA score ≥3 (p = 0.039), neoadjuvant radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (p = 0.034) and operative time ≥240 min (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that laparoscopic rectal cancer resection might safely be performed irrespective of age.

Anastomotic stenosis after coloanal, colorectal and ileoanal anastomosis: what is the best management?

AIM: To assess the results of treatment for colorectal (CRA), coloanal (CAA) or ileal pouch-anal (IPAA) anastomotic stenosis (AS). METHOD: All patients operated on for AS from 1995 to 2014 were included. Success was defined as the absence of an additional surgical procedure for AS during 12 months after the last procedure and the absence of a stoma at the end of follow-up. RESULTS: Fifty consecutive patients presenting with AS after CRA (n = 16, 32%), CAA (n = 18, 36%) or IPAA (n = 16, 32%), performed for colorectal cancer (n = 28, 56%), familial adenomatous polyposis (n = 5, 10%), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 8, 16%), diverticulitis (n = 4, 8%), benign colorectal neoplasia (n = 3, 6%) or other (n = 2, 4%) underwent a total of 99 procedures including digital (n = 14, 14%), instrumental (n = 38, 38%) or endoscopic dilatation (n = 5, 5%), transanal AS stricturoplasty (n = 9, 10%), transanal circular stapler resection (n = 11, 11%) or transabdominal redo-anastomosis (n = 22, 22%). Overall the per-procedure success rate was 53% (52/99). Success rates were 36% (5/14) for digital dilatation, 40% (15/38) for instrumental dilatation, 20% (1/5) for endoscopic dilatation, 64% (7/11) for circular stapler resection, 89% (8/9) for stricturoplasty and 73% (16/22) for transabdominal redo-anastomosis. After a mean follow-up of 46 months, 42/50 (84%) patients had treatment that was considered successful. Multivariate analysis identified redo-anastomosis [OR = 5.1 (95% CI: 1.4-18.7), P = 0.003] as the only independent prognostic factor for success. CONCLUSION: AS should be managed according to a step-up strategy. Conservative procedures are associated with acceptable success rates. If these fail, transabdominal redo-anastomosis is associated with the highest probability of success.

Bowel dysfunction after anastomotic leakage in laparoscopic sphincter-saving operative intervention for rectal cancer: A case-matched study in 46 patients using the Low Anterior Resection Score.

BACKGROUND: After sphincter-saving operation for rectal cancer, the impact of anastomotic leakage on function has been well studied. The purpose of the present work was to assess the influence of symptomatic and asymptomatic anastomotic leakage on bowel function and health-related quality of life using the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome score and the disease-specific questionnaire European Organization for Research and Treatment of Quality of Life Questionnaire for Colorectal Cancer. METHODS: The study was a case-matched study with multiple controls per case in a variable ratio from a prospectively maintained database conducted at a tertiary, colorectal operation referral center. A total of 46 patients with postoperative anastomotic leakage (symptomatic, n = 23, asymptomatic, n = 23) after laparoscopic, sphincter-saving operative intervention for rectal cancer were matched with all available patients without anastomotic leakage (control group, n = 89) using the following criteria: age, sex, type of neoadjuvant treatment, and type of anastomosis. The Low Anterior Resection Syndrome score and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Quality of Life Questionnaire for Colorectal Cancer were submitted to all included patients. The Low Anterior Resection Syndrome scores were categorized into 3 categories (no Low Anterior Resection Syndrome, minor Low Anterior Resection Syndrome, and major Low Anterior Resection Syndrome). RESULTS: Mean follow-up after stoma closure was 46 ± 26 months. Median (interquartile range) Low Anterior Resection Syndrome score for all included patients was 27 (16-36). Patients with symptomatic anastomotic leakage had impaired Low Anterior Resection Syndrome score: median 30 (23-39) vs 27 (15-34) in the control group (P = .02), with no Low Anterior Resection Syndrome in 4% (vs 31%), minor Low Anterior Resection Syndrome in 52% (vs 52%), and major Low Anterior Resection Syndrome in 44% (vs 17%) (P = .004). No difference was noted between the asymptomatic anastomotic leakage group and control group for median Low Anterior Resection Syndrome score (P = .70) and Low Anterior Resection Syndrome categories (no Low Anterior Resection Syndrome, minor LARS, and major Low Anterior Resection Syndrome; P = .58). Patients with symptomatic anastomotic leakage had significantly more anorectal and urinary symptoms compared with patients with no or asymptomatic anastomotic leakage. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic anastomotic leakage impairs function and quality of life after laparoscopic, sphincter-saving operative intervention for rectal cancer.

Oncological impact of anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic mesorectal excision.

BACKGROUND: The effect of anastomotic leakage on oncological outcomes after total mesorectal excision (TME) is controversial. This study aimed to assess the influence of symptomatic and asymptomatic anastomotic leakage on oncological outcomes after laparoscopic TME. METHODS: All patients who underwent restorative laparoscopic TME for rectal adenocarcinoma with curative intent from 2005 to 2014 were identified from an institutional database. Asymptomatic anastomotic leakage was defined by CT performed systematically 4-8 weeks after rectal surgery, with no relevant clinical symptoms or laboratory examination findings during the postoperative course. RESULTS: Of a total of 428 patients, anastomotic leakage was observed in 120 (28·0 per cent) (50 asymptomatic, 70 symptomatic). After a mean follow-up of 40 months, local recurrence was observed in 36 patients (8·4 per cent). Multivariable Cox regression identified three independent risk factors for reduced local recurrence-free survival (LRFS): symptomatic anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) 2·13, 95 per cent c.i. 1·29 to 3·50; P = 0·003), positive resection margin (R1) (OR 2·41, 1·40 to 4·16; P = 0·001) and pT3-4 category (OR 1·77, 1·08 to 2·90; P = 0·022). Patients with no risk factor for reduced LRFS had an estimated 5-year LRFS rate of 87·7(s.d. 3·2) per cent, whereas the rate dropped to 75·3(4·3) per cent with one risk factor, 67(7) per cent with two risk factors, and 14(13) per cent with three risk factors (P < 0·001). Asymptomatic anastomotic leakage was not significantly associated with LRFS in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic anastomotic leakage is a risk factor for disease recurrence in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma.

Acceptability and Reliability of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development III Cognitive and Motor Scales among Children in Makwanpur.

BACKGROUND: The Bayley Scales of Infant Development III (BSID III) is an instrument to measure the development of children aged 1-42 months. Our study sought to assess the feasibility and reliability of the BSID III's cognitive and motor sub-scales among children in rural Nepal. METHODS: For this study, translation and back translation in Nepali and English for cognitive and motor sub-scale of BSID III were done. Two testers assessed a total of 102 children aged 1-42 months and were video-recorded and rescored by the third tester. Raw scores were calculated for each assessment. Inter and intra-observer reliability of scores across the three testers was examined. Raw score was converted into scaled score to examine the mean score. The study received ethical clearance from NHRC. RESULTS: A total of 102 children were assessed. The inter-rater reliability of the BSID III among three testers using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient by age group was 0.997 (95% CI: 0.996-0.998) for the cognitive scale, 0.997 (95% CI: 0.996- 0.998) for the gross motor scale, and 0.998 (95% CI: 0.997- 0.999) for the fine motor scale. All were statistically significant (p< 0.0001). The mean scaled cognitive, fine motor and gross motor development scores in this group of children were 8.3 (SD: 2.5), 8.5 (SD: 2.6) and 9.5 (3.2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing the cognitive and motor development of children under five using the BSID III was feasible in Makwanpur district, Nepal. The inter-rater reliability was highly comparable among the three testers.

Persistent Asymptomatic Anastomotic Leakage After Laparoscopic Sphincter-Saving Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Can Diverting Stoma Be Reversed Safely at 6 Months?

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery raises the problem of the timing of diverting stoma reversal. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess whether stoma reversal can be safely performed at 6 months after laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer with total mesorectal excision in patients with persistent asymptomatic anastomotic leakage. DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective database. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary colorectal surgery referral center. PATIENTS: All of the patients with anastomotic leakage were treated conservatively after sphincter-saving laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main study measure was postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: A total of 110 (26%) of 429 patients who presented with anastomotic leakage and were treated conservatively were diagnosed only on CT scan (60 symptomatic (14%) and 50 asymptomatic (12%)). During follow up, 82 (75%) of 110 anastomotic leakages healed spontaneously after a mean delay of 16 ± 6 weeks (range, 4-30 weeks). Among these patients, 7 (9%) of 82 developed postoperative symptomatic pelvic sepsis after stoma reversal. Among the 28 patients remaining, 3 died during follow-up. The remaining 25 patients (23%) presented with persistent asymptomatic anastomotic leakage with chronic sinus >6 months after rectal surgery. Stoma reversal was performed in 19 asymptomatic patients, but 3 (16%) of 19 developed postoperative symptomatic pelvic sepsis after stoma reversal (3/19 vs 7/82 patients; p = 0.217), requiring a redo surgery with transanal colonic pull-through and delayed coloanal anastomosis (n = 2) or standard coloanal anastomosis (n = 1). Regarding the 6 final patients, abdominal redo surgery was performed because of either symptoms or anastomotic leakage with a large presacral cavity. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: In the great majority of patients with persistent anastomotic leakage at 6 months after total mesorectal excision, stoma reversal can be safely performed.